Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

12627293132195

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,953 ✭✭✭✭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.

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Can scented candles cure the ghey???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Jellicoe


    Depends where you put them


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,953 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I thought they caused it.

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    ninja900 wrote: »
    I thought they caused it.

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,953 ✭✭✭✭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.

    .

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    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.

    But which ones? Was causation established? If so, how? How thick is the evidence.
    Also, if its to be spun as a safety issue, in terms of health, then what about the statistics that something like 65% of all new HIV cases in the US were from homosexuals? Thats a group that make up 3% of the population, yet with 65% of the HIV infections. Similarly for lots of other STD's. So one could spin it that an attempt is being made to lessen the risk for such a person. I think there is inconsistency, and that political motivations are truly what are at play.

    Read an interesting response to the APA report that has been referred to here:
    Therapists have been offering therapies to help homosexuals for many decades. However the task force now demands a standard of proof of effectiveness for sexual-reorientation therapy which is impossibly high and is not required of other therapies.

    The success rates of various therapies for addiction, for example, are similar to those for sexual-reorientation therapy, but addiction therapies are never attacked on the grounds that they have not been subjected to the impossibly rigorous tests proposed for therapy for homosexuals.

    The only rigorous survey to test the effectiveness of sexual-reorientation therapy would be a longitudinal comparison of groups that received “treatment” versus “no treatment.” But since clients usually present with many co-morbid problems, particularly suicidality, mood disorders and substance abuse, the “no treatment” option would not be ethical. This means, therefore, that a rigorous test of reorientation therapy would be impossible.

    The task force’s insistence on such high standards of proof for sexual-reorientation therapies is so highly selective that its motives must be suspected of being merely political, which would be reprehensible in an organization which claims to be science-based.

    Would the committee recommend that therapy for obesity, drugs or alcoholism not be attempted because they have a high recidivism rate? The ethical position must surely be that anything that may work should be tried, though with appropriate safeguards and with appropriate informed consent.

    Given the task force’s stated standards of therapeutic efficacy, the same research standards must be applied to testing gay-affirmative therapy — i.e., therapy which affirms the client’s homosexuality as good, equivalent to heterosexuality, and intrinsic to the client’s nature. In fact, even higher standards must be demanded because this therapeutic approach is largely untried, compared with the wealth of experience gained over many decades for traditional sexual-reorientation therapies. In fact, some common sense is needed, for traditional therapies which at least advocate same-sex sexual abstinence, will ultimately save many gay men’s lives. On the other hand, gay-affirmative therapy, which allows or encourages expression of an intense sexuality which often causes premature death, should have to meet extremely high standards of proof to be declared “safe.”


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,722 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Also, if its to be spun as a safety issue, in terms of health, then what about the statistics that something like 65% of all new HIV cases in the US were from homosexuals? Thats a group that make up 3% of the population, yet with 65% of the HIV infections. Similarly for lots of other STD's. So one could spin it that an attempt is being made to lessen the risk for such a person. I think there is inconsistency, and that political motivations are truly what are at play.

    Banning unproven, ineffective dubious and potential dangerous medical treatments is completely different to banning certain people from having sex.
    One is common and a very appropriate thing to do, the other in an infringing on basic human rights.
    Yet you pretend they are comparable for some reason.... almost as if you're the one with the political motivations...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    King Mob wrote: »
    Banning unproven, ineffective dubious and potential dangerous medical treatments is completely different to banning certain people from having sex.
    One is common and a very appropriate thing to do, the other in an infringing on basic human rights.
    Yet you pretend they are comparable for some reason.... almost as if you're the one with the political motivations...


    ...almost as if - perish the thought- he was obsessed with what gays did.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    JimiTime wrote: »
    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.

    It's exactly relevant, you can't just make a claim that there are people who don't want to be homosexual and brush away any circumstances that may lead to a person feeling like reparative therapy is their only option. We are talking about minors here if you don't recall, and LGBT youth are at serious risk of being thrown out of their homes by their own parents, so their reasons for seeing dangerous and damaging "therapies" as an alternative are incredibly relevant. It doesn't seem like much of a choice when they've got the proverbial loaded gun pointed at their head, and it would take someone extremely callous not to take that into consideration as long as the religious get what they want. And no, "religious conviction" is absolutely not a valid reason at all, because we're still talking about minors here!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    What is it with these zealouts(sic)? Always with the conversions, everybody must be converted to MY WAY of thinking and believing.

    I'd rather be a "pervert" than a convert anyday.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    old hippy wrote: »
    What is it with these zealouts(sic)? Always with the conversions, everybody must be converted to MY WAY of thinking and believing.

    I'd rather be a "pervert" than a convert anyday.

    Where did anyone say they must be converted? What they do is what they do. If they choose to embrace their desires then good luck to them. I have not championed coercion at all. the opposite in fact. Its about those that exist WHO THEMSELVES, WANT to change.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    So till no response on whether we should allow minors to change their sexuality even if it were possible or even the one you'd only have to pay lip service to because you know the business would never happen, people changing from heterosexual to homosexual. Silence is deafening and all that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,722 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Where did anyone say they must be converted? What they do is what they do. If they choose to embrace their desires then good luck to them. I have not championed coercion at all. the opposite in fact. Its about those that exist WHO THEMSELVES, WANT to change.

    So again, would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?
    How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    If someone wants to change their orientation, let 'em! Though the concept of wanting to be a different orientation raises some weird questions about orientation.

    Shouldn't be available to minors.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    King Mob wrote: »
    So again, would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?
    How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?

    I have a friend who would love to be Gay. She tried so hard to fancy women but no matter how much she wanted it to happen, she still fancied only men - sadly she also fancied men who were low down dirty dogs.

    For years she insisted that heterosexuality was just a phase and she would eventually grow out of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Read an interesting response to the APA report that has been referred to here:
    ...
    Neil Whitehead -- or "Dr Neil Whitehead Ph.D" as he's more frequently referred to on the internet -- does not have a qualification in psychiatry or psychology, but instead in the unrelated area of Biochemistry, and that from 1971. Within mainstream science, it's considered odd that somebody would write book-length documents on an area in which he appears to have no formal qualification, nor indeed, any scientific training at all. Creationists and similar self-publicists do it all the time, but that's another story.

    Whitehead also seems to be connected to an outfit called NARTH, a virulently homophobic organization run by a deeply unpleasant individual named Joseph Nicolosi. NARTH is one of very few organizations in the USA which claims to be scientific, but which still promotes the thoroughly scientifically-discredited theory of psychoanalysis. NARTH, btw, is a prominent supporter of gay-conversion "therapy" and hit the headlines last year when its "scientific committee" claimed that black slaves were better off in the USA cutting cotton than they were in Africa:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Gerald_Schoenewolf_controversy

    Whitehead has also produced a book named "My Genes Made Me Do It!", a dreadful book-length screed in which the author claims to deliver the "scientific facts about homosexuality", a claim laid waste by the lies he starts delivering almost immediately (about the stats behind the RCC's pedophile scandal, for example; there are plenty more easily-trashable nonsense in the few pages that I bothered looking at).

    I wouldn't quote Mr Whitehead on homosexuality any more than I'd quote Bozo the Clown on General Relativity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    robindch wrote: »
    Neil Whitehead -- or "Dr Neil Whitehead Ph.D" as he's more frequently referred to on the internet -- does not have a qualification in psychiatry or psychology, but instead in the unrelated area of Biochemistry, and that from 1971. Within mainstream science, it's considered odd that somebody would write book-length documents on an area in which he appears to have no formal qualification, nor indeed, any scientific training at all. Creationists and similar self-publicists do it all the time, but that's another story.

    Whitehead also seems to be connected to an outfit called NARTH, a virulently homophobic organization run by a deeply unpleasant individual named Joseph Nicolosi. NARTH is one of very few organizations in the USA which claims to be scientific, but which still promotes the thoroughly scientifically-discredited theory of psychoanalysis. NARTH, btw, is a prominent supporter of gay-conversion "therapy" and hit the headlines last year when its "scientific committee" claimed that black slaves were better off in the USA cutting cotton than they were in Africa:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Gerald_Schoenewolf_controversy

    Whitehead has also produced a book named "My Genes Made Me Do It!", a dreadful book-length screed in which the author claims to deliver the "scientific facts about homosexuality", a claim laid waste by the lies he starts delivering almost immediately (about the stats behind the RCC's pedophile scandal, for example; there are plenty more easily-trashable nonsense in the few pages that I bothered looking at).

    I wouldn't quote Mr Whitehead on homosexuality any more than I'd quote Bozo the Clown on General Relativity.

    I. Am. In. AWE! :D


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    JimiTime just got served.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    JimiTime just got served.

    Pfft, truth won't work on him, he's Christian.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Well, now we know why Jimi didn't include a link to Mr Whitehead's statement...

    Here's a link to the full statement if anyone's interested - http://www.narth.com/docs/whiteheadcomm.html.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sarky wrote: »
    Pfft, truth won't work on him, he's Christian.


    And a rampant homophobe - a rather unholy combination.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    Neil Whitehead -- or "Dr Neil Whitehead Ph.D" as he's more frequently referred to on the internet -- does not have a qualification in psychiatry or psychology, but instead in the unrelated area of Biochemistry, and that from 1971. Within mainstream science, it's considered odd that somebody would write book-length documents on an area in which he appears to have no formal qualification, nor indeed, any scientific training at all. Creationists and similar self-publicists do it all the time, but that's another story.

    Whitehead also seems to be connected to an outfit called NARTH, a virulently homophobic organization run by a deeply unpleasant individual named Joseph Nicolosi. NARTH is one of very few organizations in the USA which claims to be scientific, but which still promotes the thoroughly scientifically-discredited theory of psychoanalysis. NARTH, btw, is a prominent supporter of gay-conversion "therapy" and hit the headlines last year when its "scientific committee" claimed that black slaves were better off in the USA cutting cotton than they were in Africa:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Gerald_Schoenewolf_controversy

    Whitehead has also produced a book named "My Genes Made Me Do It!", a dreadful book-length screed in which the author claims to deliver the "scientific facts about homosexuality", a claim laid waste by the lies he starts delivering almost immediately (about the stats behind the RCC's pedophile scandal, for example; there are plenty more easily-trashable nonsense in the few pages that I bothered looking at).

    I wouldn't quote Mr Whitehead on homosexuality any more than I'd quote Bozo the Clown on General Relativity.

    So where do his points fall down? Not saying they don't fall down, but you've quoted nothing of substance there.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    JimiTime wrote: »
    So where do his points fall down? Not saying they don't fall down, but you've quoted nothing of substance there.

    What has he quoted that is of no substance?

    Also you might answer these questions put to you earlier -
    King Mob wrote:
    So again, would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?
    How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81117762&postcount=1419


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Nodin wrote: »
    And a rampant homophobe

    'Rampant' homophobe. Love it :D

    So Jimi, how can i be a RAMPANT homophobe like you?

    Well, you need to have a moral objection to homosexual sex.

    And then we beat the ones that don't conform?

    Ehh no, what they do is up to them.

    Ey? So we just hate them, and do nothing??

    Ehh, no. We love them like we should all our neighbours.

    How often should we obsess about them?

    Obsess? Why, are they doing something to you?

    No, but they're out there aint they.

    So?

    Well they're all doing homosexually stuff.

    Thats their business.

    Well there IS this anti-bullying campaign getting rolled out in schools that involves telling children to get to know their inner tranny and the like.

    Aha, so now its going to affect more than just the consenting adults engaged in the acts we happen to morally object to.

    Yeah, can we go beat them now?

    No, remember 'Love thy neighbour'. However, thankfully in this here democracy, we can raise our concerns about the societal impact of such things, and look to resist such political agenda's.

    So will we ever get to beat them?

    'fraid not.

    Hate em?

    'fraid not.

    Yer not very rampant are you!

    Oh, very much so. Nodin gave me the badge its here on my mantel piece.


    Anyway, I better leave it there, as the weasels are out, and I'm beginning to talk to myself:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,722 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    JimiTime wrote: »
    'Rampant' homophobe. Love it :D



    Anyway, I better leave it there, as the weasels are out, and I'm beginning to talk to myself:)
    Good thing too, you looked a bit pathetic when you tried to brush off Rob's destruction of your last post.
    If you kept quoting discredited psuedoscientists and bigots and ignoring basic simple questions, who know just how sad you might seem.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    King Mob wrote: »
    Good thing too, you looked a bit pathetic when you tried to brush off Rob's destruction of your last post.
    If you kept quoting discredited psuedoscientists and bigots and ignoring basic simple questions, who know just how sad you might seem.

    As I said, the weasels are out;) Of course, you could take the guys points apart if you wish too. No-one seems that interested though. They'd rather play the man than the point it seems. Convenient, it could be said, but I'll be reading if anyone gives a sh1t enough to.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,722 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    JimiTime wrote: »
    As I said, the weasels are out;) Of course, you could take the guys points apart if you wish too. No-one seems that interested though. They'd rather play the man than the point it seems. Convenient, it could be said, but I'll be reading if anyone gives a sh1t enough to.
    Lol I wonder how much irony you can fit into one sentence without noticing....

    And robin's points do also attack his points, showing that he is not qualified to make them and is biased enough to make them up.

    So since you are now admittedly ignoring the question I think the answer is clear.
    You don't support the idea of people being cured of the heterosexuality. You can't admit that as it shows you points to be hypocritical hot air, hence why you've dodged the question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    JimiTime wrote: »
    '............

    Well there IS this anti-bullying campaign getting rolled out in schools that involves telling children to get to know their inner tranny and the like.

    Aha, so now its going to affect more than just the consenting adults engaged in the acts we happen to morally object to.
    ..............

    Lovely stuff. The mask slipped there, btw.

    You haven't answered the questions put to you.

    In the unlikely event you missed them -

    King Mob wrote:
    So again, would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?
    How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    robindch wrote: »
    Neil Whitehead -- or "Dr Neil Whitehead Ph.D" as he's more frequently referred to on the internet -- does not have a qualification in psychiatry or psychology, but instead in the unrelated area of Biochemistry, and that from 1971. Within mainstream science, it's considered odd that somebody would write book-length documents on an area in which he appears to have no formal qualification, nor indeed, any scientific training at all. Creationists and similar self-publicists do it all the time, but that's another story.

    Whitehead also seems to be connected to an outfit called NARTH, a virulently homophobic organization run by a deeply unpleasant individual named Joseph Nicolosi. NARTH is one of very few organizations in the USA which claims to be scientific, but which still promotes the thoroughly scientifically-discredited theory of psychoanalysis. NARTH, btw, is a prominent supporter of gay-conversion "therapy" and hit the headlines last year when its "scientific committee" claimed that black slaves were better off in the USA cutting cotton than they were in Africa:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Gerald_Schoenewolf_controversy

    Whitehead has also produced a book named "My Genes Made Me Do It!", a dreadful book-length screed in which the author claims to deliver the "scientific facts about homosexuality", a claim laid waste by the lies he starts delivering almost immediately (about the stats behind the RCC's pedophile scandal, for example; there are plenty more easily-trashable nonsense in the few pages that I bothered looking at).

    I wouldn't quote Mr Whitehead on homosexuality any more than I'd quote Bozo the Clown on General Relativity.
    This is a bit like the introduction to the Gillian McKeith chapter in the excellent "Bad Science". It opens with something along the lines of "This chapter is about Gillian McKeith, or to give her her full medical title, Gillian McKeith."

    MrP


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    King Mob wrote: »
    And robin's points do also attack his points, showing that he is not qualified to make them and is biased enough to make them up.

    So he attacks his points, by not dealing at all with his points. Gotcha. I'll give you this KM, you are consistent.
    So since you are now admittedly ignoring the question I think the answer is clear.

    You are free to invent any answer you want.
    You don't support the idea of people being cured of the heterosexuality. You can't admit that as it shows you points to be hypocritical hot air, hence why you've dodged the question.


    You can believe that if you wish, I don't mind. The irrelevance of the question remains though, and only serves as an attempt to once again try to play the man than the point. As i said KM, you're consistent. Like on other threads, people think they have these killer questions, and assume people ignoring them is due to something other than them being irrelevant or stupid. You are free to assume such things, but continue to feel free to make a relevant point to the topic. Lobbing explicit and implicit insults at each other is fun, admittedly, but sometimes its good to deal with the points. Though if you want to continue to just have the craic, sure no bother.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Nodin wrote: »
    Lovely stuff. The mask slipped there, btw.

    You haven't answered the questions put to you.

    In the unlikely event you missed them -


    The mask? Not at all, as I said, thats what obviously makes me a RAMPANT homophobe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    JimiTime wrote: »
    The mask? Not at all, as I said, thats what obviously makes me a RAMPANT homophobe.

    The questions - If you'd be as good as to answer please -

    King Mob wrote:
    So again, would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?
    How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?


  • Moderators Posts: 51,893 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    JimiTime wrote: »
    But which ones? Was causation established? If so, how? How thick is the evidence.
    Also, if its to be spun as a safety issue, in terms of health, then what about the statistics that something like 65% of all new HIV cases in the US were from homosexuals? Thats a group that make up 3% of the population, yet with 65% of the HIV infections. Similarly for lots of other STD's. So one could spin it that an attempt is being made to lessen the risk for such a person. I think there is inconsistency, and that political motivations are truly what are at play.

    Read an interesting response to the APA report that has been referred to here:
    Originally Posted by DR NE. Whitehead
    Therapists have been offering therapies to help homosexuals for many decades. However the task force now demands a standard of proof of effectiveness for sexual-reorientation therapy which is impossibly high and is not required of other therapies.

    The success rates of various therapies for addiction, for example, are similar to those for sexual-reorientation therapy, but addiction therapies are never attacked on the grounds that they have not been subjected to the impossibly rigorous tests proposed for therapy for homosexuals.

    The only rigorous survey to test the effectiveness of sexual-reorientation therapy would be a longitudinal comparison of groups that received “treatment” versus “no treatment.” But since clients usually present with many co-morbid problems, particularly suicidality, mood disorders and substance abuse, the “no treatment” option would not be ethical. This means, therefore, that a rigorous test of reorientation therapy would be impossible.

    The task force’s insistence on such high standards of proof for sexual-reorientation therapies is so highly selective that its motives must be suspected of being merely political, which would be reprehensible in an organization which claims to be science-based.

    Would the committee recommend that therapy for obesity, drugs or alcoholism not be attempted because they have a high recidivism rate? The ethical position must surely be that anything that may work should be tried, though with appropriate safeguards and with appropriate informed consent.

    Given the task force’s stated standards of therapeutic efficacy, the same research standards must be applied to testing gay-affirmative therapy — i.e., therapy which affirms the client’s homosexuality as good, equivalent to heterosexuality, and intrinsic to the client’s nature. In fact, even higher standards must be demanded because this therapeutic approach is largely untried, compared with the wealth of experience gained over many decades for traditional sexual-reorientation therapies. In fact, some common sense is needed, for traditional therapies which at least advocate same-sex sexual abstinence, will ultimately save many gay men’s lives. On the other hand, gay-affirmative therapy, which allows or encourages expression of an intense sexuality which often causes premature death, should have to meet extremely high standards of proof to be declared “safe.”

    Whitehead obviously doesn't understand how therapy with regards to addiction works if he thinks it's comparable to the sexuality reconditioning that is banned from being carried out on minors.

    Addiction therapy works (AFAIK) by getting a person to accept that it is part of them and that they have to work to control that desire. It doesn't attempt to condition them to be addicted to something less harmful. A closer comparison to reconditioning therapy would be to suggest that addicts be treated with aversion therapy and a steel rod.

    And Whiteheads involvement in a gay-conversion group shows that he isn't approaching the subject of homosexuality from a place of benevolence towards homosexuals. Rather he is treating it as a negative mental trait to be eradicated.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    koth wrote: »
    Whitehead obviously doesn't understand how therapy with regards to addiction works if he thinks it's comparable to the sexuality reconditioning that is banned from being carried out on minors.


    Thats not actually what he's done if you look at it again.


    Therapists have been offering therapies to help homosexuals for many decades. However the task force now demands a standard of proof of effectiveness for sexual-reorientation therapy which is impossibly high and is not required of other therapies.

    The success rates of various therapies for addiction, for example, are similar to those for sexual-reorientation therapy, but addiction therapies are never attacked on the grounds that they have not been subjected to the impossibly rigorous tests proposed for therapy for homosexuals.


    He's not comparing the two, but rather calling the APA to account for demanding a standard of proof that is not called for elsewhere. He compares the addiction therapy not in application, but rather in terms of success. Saying that the success rates for both are similar, yet the reparation therapy is considered bogus, while the addiction therapy is not.
    And Whiteheads involvement in a gay-conversion group shows that he isn't approaching the subject of homosexuality from a place of benevolence towards homosexuals. Rather he is treating it as a negative mental trait to be eradicated.

    TBH, its going to be very difficult to approach this topic without bias. What CAN be done, is that the points raised can be looked at on their own merit. I think its rather odd to completely ignore a point, because you think the person making it is whatever (Not saying you did, just saying in general). I suppose that makes for a difficult topic, as its so politically and emotionally charged.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators Posts: 51,893 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Thats not actually what he's done if you look at it again.


    Therapists have been offering therapies to help homosexuals for many decades. However the task force now demands a standard of proof of effectiveness for sexual-reorientation therapy which is impossibly high and is not required of other therapies.

    The success rates of various therapies for addiction, for example, are similar to those for sexual-reorientation therapy, but addiction therapies are never attacked on the grounds that they have not been subjected to the impossibly rigorous tests proposed for therapy for homosexuals.


    He's not comparing the two, but rather calling the APA to account for demanding a standard of proof that is not called for elsewhere. He compares the addiction therapy not in application, but rather in terms of success. Saying that the success rates for both are similar, yet the reparation therapy is considered bogus, while the addiction therapy is not.
    He is comparing the two, purely on effectiveness. The first problem he has is that addiction therapy/counselling has a wealth of medical data/case studies documenting how it works and why.

    Reconditioning therapy has zero data to back it up. All data/information was scrutinised just like addiction therapy has been. So no double standard exists, rather reconditioning failed to meet the standard taht has been met by work done in the field of addiction therapy.
    TBH, its going to be very difficult to approach this topic without bias. What CAN be done, is that the points raised can be looked at on their own merit. I think its rather odd to completely ignore a point, because you think the person making it is whatever (Not saying you did, just saying in general). I suppose that makes for a difficult topic, as its so politically and emotionally charged.

    The points were looked at on their own merits and good reasons were given as to why there is no substance to the points.

    Giving information about the person who made the point isn't harmful, especially if it's shown that he is involved in a group that are involved practises that the medical community have said are dangerous and have no effectiveness on patients.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    jimi- surely it is immaterial how valid this guys points are ? The first thing one would do investigating any claim is to verify the credentials of the person making them ?

    This would any apply to anything from carpentry to physics , and if those credentials don't measure up you move on to the next ''expert''. Life is too short to waste time debunking claims that the guy was'nt qualified to make in the first place.

    That is what you would do if you being objective . On the other hand if you had an already fixed view then you might go searching for ''experts'' to confirm that view ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,856 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    JimiTime wrote: »
    You can believe that if you wish, I don't mind. The irrelevance of the question remains though, and only serves as an attempt to once again try to play the man than the point. As i said KM, you're consistent. Like on other threads, people think they have these killer questions, and assume people ignoring them is due to something other than them being irrelevant or stupid. You are free to assume such things, but continue to feel free to make a relevant point to the topic. Lobbing explicit and implicit insults at each other is fun, admittedly, but sometimes its good to deal with the points. Though if you want to continue to just have the craic, sure no bother.
    And as always, you utterly fail to even attempt to explain why the question is irrelevant. Someone asks you a difficult question you don't like, and every single time, without fail, you call it "stupid". You don't say why it's stupid, you don't say how it's relevancy is in any way diminished, just that it's "stupid". And then you have the arrogance to say that other people are playing the man instead of the point?* Oh, and by the way, the only explicit insult in the last few pages of this thread has been from you, calling Bannasidhe illiterate. And then you cry to the moderators that no-one's treating you fairly?

    *Out of curiosity, how is asking you a question playing the man?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,722 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    JimiTime wrote: »
    So he attacks his points, by not dealing at all with his points. Gotcha. I'll give you this KM, you are consistent.
    So you don't think the fact that he is not qualified to make the judgements in his points is relevant?
    You don't think that the fact he works for such a vile and biased organisation might taint his opinions?

    Unfortunatly, since neither you, nor he backs up his assertions with something other than with his own authority, the most direct and simple way to address his points to to show how he has no authority at all.
    Which robin showed he doesn't.

    But then you really really needed an excuse to avoid those points, hence your silly feigned outrage.
    You could have say supplied the evidence to back up his assertions, or argued how he is qualified, or that his organisation isn't bigoted and biased...
    But that would require those things to be true and for you to be honest.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    You are free to invent any answer you want.

    You can believe that if you wish, I don't mind. The irrelevance of the question remains though, and only serves as an attempt to once again try to play the man than the point. As i said KM, you're consistent. Like on other threads, people think they have these killer questions, and assume people ignoring them is due to something other than them being irrelevant or stupid. You are free to assume such things, but continue to feel free to make a relevant point to the topic. Lobbing explicit and implicit insults at each other is fun, admittedly, but sometimes its good to deal with the points. Though if you want to continue to just have the craic, sure no bother.
    And yet, you can't answer a simple direct question....
    Almost as if the answer proves your point to be hypocritical hot air.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,953 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Letter in yesterday's Irish Times:
    Sir, – Canon Charles Kenny states that “If a church truly believes in equality then it should not introduce caveats to lessen that equality. Behind the denial to a gay or lesbian couple of the right to avail of civil marriage is the belief that their relationship is inferior to a heterosexual one” (October 5th).

    The point is that a gay relationship is different to that of a heterosexual couple. Yet, today many gay couples can now adopt or have children by other means; and through civil partnership they have all the legal rights (and obligations) of a married couple.

    Many companies offer same-sex partners all the benefits they give to spouses and wives. What is all the fuss about for a church ceremony?

    Older gays who experienced discrimination in Ireland in the 1970s are more cautious about church weddings which are usually more expensive than civil ceremonies. They view the clamour for gays to marry in church as pushing the boundaries that bit too far – which can provoke a backlash.

    Even though we are now more tolerant than in the 1970s, the ongoing recession can make people less tolerant of minorities and the sight of gays splashing out thousands on a fancy church wedding when most familes are struggling to pay the bills may not be the best advertisement for a gay lifestyle. – Yours, etc,

    - Ignores that civil partnership legislation is silent on the position of a gay couple's children. It is not equivalent to a civil marriage.

    - Ignores that the campaign to change the law can only affect civil marriage - what churches choose to permit in their ceremonies is their and their followers' business

    - Whatever about the Church of Ireland, the RCC is not going to allow gay weddings in church!!!

    - Who'd want to be married in a church which (until at least the next pope's reign - but a pope effectively chooses the candidates for the next papacy so the prospect of change is poor) considers gay people to be 'intrinsically disordered' ??

    - The weaselly last paragraph is particularly odious, if Der Sturmer had letters to the editor it would fit right in with minimal changes. Sure the jews/gays/blacks/whoever should know their place and not draw attention to themselves and be glad we let them live in society atall...

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,016 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I was really pleasantly surprised by that letter.

    When I was reading it, I assumed the writer would go on to draw a distinction between civil marriage and religious ceremonies, and I expected him to say he fully supported civil marriage equality, but that religious organisations should be allowed to marry in the fashion they wished, within the confines of their own belief. And I would have been fine with that. To have anyone in a Christian church call for full marriage equality would have been great.

    But for him to then go on and call for religious marriage equality was a breath of fresh air.
    Yeah it's good alright. Sadly, the Presbyertian notes from Saturday's IT sing a pretty unfriendly attitude towards gar marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    So where do his points fall down? Not saying they don't fall down, but you've quoted nothing of substance there.
    A bit like quite a few recent posts in this thread, I'm wondering if I should start this one "I'm not sure if you had time to read the previous post(s), but...". But I won't. Which of the substantial claims I made lacked substance? Here they are again for the sake of convenience:

    I pointed out that he appears to have no formal qualification in the area in which he's operating; that it's frankly dishonest to label yourself as "Dr" and "PhD" when discussing a topic in which you've no formal qualification (people might be understandably mislead into thinking that the PhD does refer to the topic at hand); that his figures on RCC pedophilia are flat-out wrong, even according to what the RCC itself says (around 66% of the victims were young boys, not 99% as he claims); that he appears to be linked to NARTH, an organization which is known to be virulently homophobic (implying that Whitehead and his conclusions are driven by ideology, and not by fact); that NARTH supports the discredited techniques of psychoanalysis (really); that his book-length screed is peppered with an unending stream of elementary howlers including spelling, grammar and stylistic errors not to mention a collection of errors of fact which are so pervasive that they cannot be unintentional. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

    Do all of these together really constitute "nothing of substance"?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Can I ask Jimi this; would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

    How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    old hippy wrote: »
    Can I ask Jimi this; would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

    How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?

    You can but may as well ask the wall. It's been asked and like many questions he's uncomfortable with the logical conclusion that follows his initial secular looking stance he tries to hide it by claiming its a silly or stupid question without any reason.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Letter in yesterday's Irish Times:

    There's an article in today's Irish Indo (here) about how much hetero couples spend on weddings, and it seems that that letter writer has to worry about more than just the gays splashing out thousands:
    A survey of 200 couples commissioned by the [upcoming Designer Wedding Show's] organisers reveals that the average couple spend €9,905 on their venue, €2,436 on the band and entertainment, €1,865 on the wedding dress and €1,647 on the photographer. Yet, other smaller items such as €476 on wedding car hire and €214 on wedding favours combine to bring the average spend to €23,398.

    The big-ticket items are the reception venue and the photographer, with most couples allotting half their budget to these. Around 71pc of the couples questioned said quality was more important than price.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    There's an article in today's Irish Indo (here) about how much hetero couples spend on weddings, and it seems that that letter writer has to worry about more than just the gays splashing out thousands:

    My 30 year old nephew is marrying his 27 year old fiancee next month. His mother is paying for the whole shebang including honeymoon (idiot!) even though she is in dire mortgage arrears herself. Yet, the happy couple were able to afford to fly off for stag/hen weekends and up until the bride learned she is about to be made redundant at the end of this month they were planning a month long 2nd honeymoon in Thailand in the new year. The mind boggles!!!

    They have saved some money as I have agreed to be the photographer for the day but when asked to arrive at 9 a.m. for a 2 p.m. ceremony so I could photograph the bride getting her hair done I must admit I employed some Anglo-Saxon vernacular rarely heard since the 16th century.

    The attitude of this couple has me gobsmacked - the Bride has gone all bridezilla and must have x + y +z as it's her special day and he goes along with all of this as 'sure, it's what she wants like...' - that's grand but pay for it yourself in that case ye freeloading miscreants!!! :mad:


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement