The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Usually 15, 16 and 17 year old kids would be under the influence of their parents. If they need counselling it would more often than not, be their parents who pays for it. I think the legislation would do quite a lot to protect the child in my hypothetical situation.

A very religious family who are homophobic and their child has come out gay, are unlikely to attempt to have said child seen by a secular, liberal counsellor now are they?

A secular liberal counsellor? You mean a counsellor who believes that the person should just affirm. There is bias everywhere in this topic, but it seems only one bias is allowed. In your hypothetical scenario, the child will no longer have access to ANY professional counselling, as the parents are not likely to send the under 18 to a gay affirming professional are they? So what happens then? They can then be sent to all manner of unprofessional people. Now again, its not a profession I have a great deal of respect for anyway, but at least there might be a degree of professional ethics with the qualified, certified professional and full disclosure of the methods used.
Meanwhile, those under 18 who genuinely don't want same sex attraction have lost out on access to the professionals in the field.

JimiTime wrote: »

A secular liberal counsellor? You mean a counsellor who believes that the person should just affirm. There is bias everywhere in this topic, but it seems only one bias is allowed. In your hypothetical scenario, the child will no longer have access to ANY professional counselling, as the parents are not likely to send the under 18 to a gay affirming professional are they? So what happens then? They can then be sent to all manner of unprofessional people. Now again, its not a profession I have a great deal of respect for anyway, but at least there might be a degree of professional ethics with the qualified, certified professional and full disclosure of the methods used.
Meanwhile, those under 18 who genuinely don't want same sex attraction have lost out on access to the professionals in the field.

Well it is hardly helpful to have them counselled by a person who is going to declare that homosexuality is a 'sin', 'abomination' etc is it? Whether they are actually homosexual or going through a period of being confused, I don't see how that type of attitude would do anything only harm, and as such I believe they would be better off with no counselling at all.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Well it is hardly helpful to have them counselled by a person who is going to declare that homosexuality is a 'sin', 'abomination' etc is it? Whether they are actually homosexual or going through a period of being confused, I don't see how that type of attitude would do anything only harm, and as such I believe they would be better off with no counselling at all.

But thats because you don't believe its sinful, or that there is anything wrong with it. Some people do, and the professional counselling as far as I can tell, looks for triggers in their lives that may have had an impact on them in terms of their sexual appetite. From what I can gather, its not about just telling them they are an abomination or somesuch, but rather looking for tangible triggers in their lives, and trying to address them. Some of the Ex-homosexual testimony I've read, alluded to abuse, bad/no relationship with Father etc, and the profesional counseling allegedly dealt with these trauma's, and this had an impact on their sexual appetite. One testimony (in a very brief nutshell) I read alluded to this guy having a father who gave no affection and wasn't around much with work etc, and him longing for such affection. Eventually, this affection that he craved became a subconcious obsession and brought about a skewing of his sexual longing. It wasn't about 'Men turn me on', it was a craving for intimacy with a man etc. Allegedly, this was addressed, and the man transitioned to heterosexuality, married a woman, had a family etc. Thats HIS testimony.

JimiTime wrote: »

To some it is illness of sorts. A disorder that prevents them from fulfilling their biological potential etc

It may seem like an illness to some people, but an illness still needs to be diagnosed before it can be treated. And if homosexuality isn't classed as an illness, it's a poor therapist that would try to diagnose, never mind treat, an illness that doesn't exist.

JimiTime wrote: »

I disagree. I believe lack of honesty is the culprit you allude to, but we coul go into another discussion about that. So I suppose, all thats left to say is that I'll respond how I see fit, and people are free to take it whichever way they wish. I will guarantee one thing, I'll be honest. I try not to beat around the bush, or purposely offend (Well, I do like to take the pee out of people I consider to be playing to galleries or acting the eejit )

You say you're not going to beat around the bush, but you still haven't answered Kiwi's question: why was it first classified as a mental disorder? If you feel there's a lack of honesty in the thread, then lead be example and give an honest answer.

NuMarvel wrote: »

. . . why was [homosexuality] first classified as a mental disorder?

Interesting question.

As far as I can tell, homosexuality was pretty consistently regarded as pathological pretty much from the time that psychiatry began to emerge as a distinct discipline. We might be tempted to blame this on the influence of pre-existing moral/ethical/religious views of homosexuality, but that would be too simplistic. Figures who were distinctly non-religious, and who had no difficulty questioning, challenging or rejecting religious views in other areas, seem to have accepted that homosexuality was more or less pathological - Krafft-Ebbing, Freud. Even Magnus Hirschfeld, regarded as an early hero of the gay rights movement, regarded it as the sexual analogue of a physical disability.

At a guess, I’d say that figures like Krafft-Ebbing, etc rejected religious views on homosexuality but replaced them with biological deterministic views. Reproduction is clearly a significant dimension of sex, and from an evolutionary point of view its central dimension, and homosexual sex is clearly not oriented towards reproduction (except, at best, very indirectly) so they had no difficulty accepting that it was basically deviant - as in, it deviated from a healthy sexuality which would make for successful reproduction.

Freud, famously, did eventually move to a point where he denied that homosexuality could be “classified as an illness”, but this was not until 1935, by which time he was 78. And even then he was still willing to “treat” homosexuality and attempt to “make normal heterosexuality take its place”, language which suggests that though he didn’t see it as an illness he did see it as abnormal. He saw nothing unethical in attempting such treatment, though he doubted that it could succeed very far “in the majority of cases”. So, not an illness, but not a full state of health either.

It probably wasn’t until the 1950s and 1960s that the pathological view of homosexuality was seriously challenged and, while the challenge was partly due to a changing understanding of human sexuality, I suspect it had more to do with changing thinking about what constituted a mental “disorder”. There was a dawning realisation that whether particular behaviour constituted a “disorder” depended in large part on how other people reacted to it, meaning that it ultimately depended on culture as much as on physiological factors.

philologos wrote: »

If you're going to hold Jimi to this standard you should hold yourself to this standard also.

I phrased the question to you, not Jimi.

Lets not engage in hypocrisy.

I've put many questions to you that you've chosen to ignore, nor am I the only one. If that behaviour is good enough for you, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us?

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex ignored me.

I answered extensively on slavery on the megathread. I was clear on my views on marriage. There's no advocacy of rape in the Bible.

What I did say is that I wouldn't speculate beyond the Bible. I answered everything except for these and I explained why.

Yes I know Zombrex ignored you.

is condoning equal to advocacy ?

philologos wrote: »

This should be in the other thread but the Bible condemns rape. I can show you in a number of places.

lets take it to the other thread then

philologos wrote: »

My point to you was don't badger Jimi if you can't keep to that standard yourself.

Had you not done this I wouldn't have brought it up.

I'm more than happy to review your question later.

Then I pose the same question to you: what questions have you directly asked of me that I have not replied to?

philologos wrote: »

I don't mind if you don't respond. Indeed I try to respond to as much as I can but I have limitations.

I don't generally pull people up on this. But you did, and I'm just holding you to your own standard.

This is more of the same. You make a statement, your statement is questioned or challenged, and your response is to just repeat the statement. And if past experience is anything to go by, you'll claim you did address those questions if the topic comes up again in the future. That's not the kind of discussion I'm interested in participating in, so enjoy your time on the merry-go-round.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Homosexuality is self-evidently wrong. This truth is reinforced by scripture.

Apparently we're not allowed (forum rules) to go into many of the nasty details as to why homosexuality is bad for the individual who participates in it.

You have just presented a very good example of why religion is evidently wrong!