Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

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.

ninja900 wrote: »

I thought they caused it.

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

Penn wrote: »

Not completely, but mostly.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corkfeen 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:

DR NE. Whitehead wrote:

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nodin wrote: »

And a rampant homophobe

'Rampant' homophobe. Love it

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:)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.