homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Anyone know any 'cured' gay folk? (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Anyone know any 'cured' gay folk?
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PS At the risk of this sounding like the stereotypical 'some of my best friends are gay' conservative bleat, Mrs B and I love this guy to bits and he was Mrs B's 'best man' at our wedding.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dennis the Menace
Shipmate
# 11833

 - Posted      Profile for Dennis the Menace   Email Dennis the Menace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ricardus, Mrs B and I have a very close friend who would fall within your category. He is a Christian, with same-sex attraction/ orientation, and would self-describe as gay, but believes same-sex sexual acts (define!!!) to be sinful and therefore leads a celibate life. He would personally be loathe to shout such things from the rooftops as he regards the whole matter as deeply private and personal to him but, if pressed, would probably self-describe as 'gay but celibate'.

I can relate to that. When I was in my early 20's which was in the 70's. Being gay then was not as easy as it is today. With no one to turn to for advice etc it took me quite a while to overcome the feeling that same sex acts were sinful/unclean, particularly at the beginning of my sexual awakenings. It was only when I attended the gay church in Sydey that I came to terms with being a Christian and gay.

My partner and I have been together for 32 years and we attend a main stream church as a gay couple with no problems and take an active part in the worship life of the church. We are treated with the same respect as everyone else. (Our minister would take anyone to task if they didn't!) We certainly don't shout it from the roof tops either nor does anyone mention 'sex'. We are known as 'the boys'.

--------------------
"Till we cast our crowns before Him; Lost in wonder, love, and praise."

Posts: 853 | From: Newcastle NSW Australia | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If someone feels attracted to members of the same sex, but believes that homosexual acts are sinful, and therefore does not act on those feelings of attraction: why would they identify as gay or homosexual at all? Granted its axioms, wouldn't it be like saying "I'm a liar, but I never actually tell lies"?


This honestly just seems like a variation of "how do you know if you're gay if you've never had sex"?

And I genuinely don't understand it. Straight people identify as straight before they ever have sex. It's perfectly possible for a person who has made a commitment to celibacy - a priest or a nun or a monk - to know who they are attracted to even though they feel they mustn't act on it. It's perfectly possible for a straight man to have sexual attraction for a woman he knows he mustn't have sex with.

I told someone I thought I was gay around a decade before I had any sexual encounter. I had concluded it secretly to myself several years before that. We're talking in my early 20s here. And I was absolutely devastated. Nothing to do with having so much as touched or caressed a man. Ever. I knew it was what I wanted to do, and I 'knew' at the time that I absolutely mustn't.

Which resulted in me fantasising about it endlessly, and beating myself with a metaphorical stick every time I did, of course.

Orientation is not action. Homosexual orientation is not homosexual sex. A recovered alcoholic will still label themselves as an alcoholic.

Besides, what's wrong with saying you're a liar anyway? Conceptually there's nothing nonsensical about the statement. It's the difference between characteristic and behaviour. And self-identification your character is an entirely different idea, conceptually, from liking yourself. Self-identifying as gay is totally different from whether you self-identify with the 'gay community' and want to hang out with the other fags.

[ 19. April 2012, 12:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PS And of course, I never would have gone through the process of trying to be cured of being gay if I hadn't identified myself as gay in the first place. I would have just been a guy who hadn't much success with women yet.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
orfeo,

I am simply trying to explore the implications of the conservative view of homosexuality - where feeling homosexual attraction is not sinful, but acting on it is. This is not a view that I personally hold.

One of the liberal arguments is based on 'identity'. Denying sexual fulfilment to gay people is bad because it is denying a part of their identity. And identity in this usage is something more than just the sum of your attributes.

(For comparison, I like bacon. If I went to live in Saudi Arabia, I would have to give it up, and this would be annoying, but it would not be denying a part of my identity. But denying sexual fulfilment to homosexuals is - on the liberal argument - a suppression of their identity.)

A conservative must deny that premise. I cannot think of any other case in which an urge is a.) considered sinful, b.) never acted upon, but c.) considered to be a component of your identity. Someone who wants to steal but doesn't is not a thief. Someone who wants to lie but doesn't is not a liar. They are not a liar precisely because they don't lie.

I don't accept alcoholism as a counter-example because alcoholism, AIUI, is an actual medical condition - an alcoholic who's given up drinking really is clinically different from a strict Muslim who has never drunk.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Apologies, it was probably unfair to put you under the spotlight.

Och, it's a bit late to worry about that for our Dobby.

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
same-sex sexual acts (define!!!)

Well, the definition is where it falls apart. There are no "acts" which all and only SS marriages contain and which all and only mixed-gender marriages do not, or vice versa. So saying "homosexual acts are sinful" isn't factually wrong; it's unintelligible on its form. Heck, even the expression "opposite sex" assumes that there are two sexes, an assumption that does not doesn't withstand our clinical genetic knowledge.


quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
A conservative must deny that premise.

Well, the selective conservative has to find a way to impugn gay people's marriages while preserving his own (i.e. marriage has to be good, but not _too_ good) which is the defining paradox of all "anti" arguments. So setting up the straw person of a distinct kind of "gay sex" makes it sound more charitable than if they just came out and said "I've got mine" but someone whose identity is different ought not. Of course the consistent conservative like myself has no need of such web-spinning and can simply affirm the Bible's words on marriage without adding asterisks or exemptions to their scope or application to some people.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Isn't it perfectly possible for someone to have a homosexual orientation which is "biological" but is part of the Fall?

This sounds like a variant of calling it unnatural. The idea would be more intriguing if homosexuality were unique to the human race. For a long time it was often assumed that it was. It has even been ignorantly claimed in discussions like this one. Zoological facts were suppressed. Homosexual behavior in animals was kept as tightly in the closet as that of humans. But this idea is now risible.

The Fall, if it is to have any meaning, is an event distinct from creation. It is the result of a human act. Being such, it must have occurred within the lifetime of our species. So I think that you need to explain whether the Fall affected animals as well as people. If it did not, then how is it that something o.k. for our ancestors, and still o.k. for monkeys and birds, suddenly became not o.k. for us? If it did, then you imply that animals, like humans, became homosexual only after the Fall. You might as well be a young-earth creationist.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kyzyl

Ship's dog
# 374

 - Posted      Profile for Kyzyl   Email Kyzyl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

My gay lifestyle today involved doing lots of filing, and there might be some ironing this evening.

Your gay lifestyle seems very similar to my straight one. Except the ironing bit. And the filing. But similar in nature if not detail.
Does writing a Word doc count with filing?

Gays don't use Word. We've got our own special software.
I didn't know this! Why am I always last to hear these things? I mean, I only just got my toaster oven.

--------------------
I need a quote.

Posts: 668 | From: Wapasha's Prairie | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Apologies, it was probably unfair to put you under the spotlight.

Och, it's a bit late to worry about that for our Dobby.

Hosting

LQ, pejorative nick-names count as name-calling which is a C3 violation. This is not allowed anywhere except the Hell board, so don't do it again.

thanks
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Hosting off

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482

 - Posted      Profile for Peter Ould   Author's homepage   Email Peter Ould   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Because ever so often God has a purpose through suffering? No-one ever said being a Christian meant that you have a perfect life.

You mean I should divorce my wife and find a man I'm not attracted to to run off with because God has a purpose through the resulting suffering? [/QB][/QUOTE]

What do *you* think the answer to that question is?

--------------------
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net

Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The idea would be more intriguing if homosexuality were unique to the human race.

It more or less is. As long as you count bonobos as human...

The idea that "gay" behaviour is widespread animals is mostly a mixture of misinterpretation and special pleading. I'm not saying there is nothing behind it but its heavily over-interpreted.

And even if it wasn't its quite irrelevant to these arguments because there is no reason to think that behaviour that is sinful for humans is sinful for other animals.

There are wasps that burrow into their own mother and eat her from the inside out. There are wasps that would like to burrow into you and you from the inside out. That would be a sin for a human, but its what wasps do. Is that a sin?

quote:

The Fall, if it is to have any meaning, is an event distinct from creation. It is the result of a human act. Being such, it must have occurred within the lifetime of our species.

Yes, but in the way these things work it could have effects before the creation of our species. And has traditionally been assumed to. There is the Biblical notion of the whole universe being in bondage and crying out for release. And the probably-not-biblical idea of Satan as a "fallen angel", or even whole hosts of fallen angels.

The NT describes the events of Jesus's life and death and resurection as having cosmic significance, as having effects outside time. The same could be imagined to be true of the Fall.

And yes, if we are fallen then its perfectly possible for a tendency to this or that sin to be "natural" to us. So there is nothing contradictory in a Christian who believes in the Fall recognising that someone may be naturally inclined to any given sinful activity - it might be "normal" for them but it is still wrong.


There's nothing unique about sexual behaviour here - all the other classic sins, pride, gluttony, sloth, greed, wrath, envy, anger - are all "natural" to humanity. You don't get off a manslaughter charge by saying that you are naturally an angry or a violent man. You are expected to learn which of your natural feelings are moral and which immoral and choose which to act on.

So the argument that homesexuality is natural, or is genetically inherited, isn't one that is likely to persuade theologically and politically conservative Christians that it is not sinful. You'd probably be on a better wicket talking about equality before the law, and privacy, and tolerance, and small government.


quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But denying sexual fulfilment to homosexuals is - on the liberal argument - a suppression of their identity.

And the trouble with that argument is that there are hundreds of millions of heterosexuals who can claim they are denied "sexual fulfilment" as well.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482

 - Posted      Profile for Peter Ould   Author's homepage   Email Peter Ould   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW, I am a straight man who is liberal on the Gay Issue, and one question which I have never quite dared ask is:

If someone feels attracted to members of the same sex, but believes that homosexual acts are sinful, and therefore does not act on those feelings of attraction: why would they identify as gay or homosexual at all? Granted its axioms, wouldn't it be like saying "I'm a liar, but I never actually tell lies"?

The link in your sig does seem to address that question, so thanks.

Good question,

Some would come to a position where they would be happy to be public (to a lesser or greater extent) about their same-sex attraction and have no problems calling themselves "gay". This was me at one point. However, I then came to a position where I decided that I wasn't going to call myself gay or straight, not because I was in denial about my attractions, but rather because I didn't see it as an identity that had any Scriptural basis. I just tried to be a man, and from Scripture I saw that men either stayed single or got married.

--------------------
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net

Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But denying sexual fulfilment to homosexuals is - on the liberal argument - a suppression of their identity.

That's partly given in that we do talk about sexual fulfilment and don't talk about porcivore fulfilment. And partly because the matter is not solely about sex.

The fact is that sex and sexual-erotic relationships are widely considered meaningful by our society. When I say meaningful, I mean in a way that makes it hard to understand it as a mere subjective preference. Finding our sexual relationships to be one of the important avenues in which we profoundly discover what it means to be human does not appear merely subjective. It's not like saying we prefer pork to lamb.

A problem for gay-rights campaigners is that our culture frames these kinds of questions as matters of economic rationality and desire preference. So gay-rights campaigners have ended up talking as though making gay sex illegal is simply like banning foie gras as though all that's at stake is desire satisfaction and the pursuit of pleasure. It's not: it's about the search for meaning. But our dominant modes of public discourse make it hard to talk about that.

As an aside, part of what I think opponents of same-sex marriage object to is that they think gay rights campaigners are treating marriage as merely a route to desire-satisfaction. But they won't come out and say so because they haven't framed it to themselves in those terms and if they did the more self-aware would realise how insulting it was.

When we talk about sexual fulfilment we do in fact mean more than merely that sex is a pleasure like oysters that everyone should put on their bucket list to try at least once before they die. We mean sex is a place in which we can find some of the meaning in life. And then it's not just about sex: it's about the whole status of erotic relationships with other people.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Apologies, it was probably unfair to put you under the spotlight.

Och, it's a bit late to worry about that for our Dobby.

Hosting

LQ, pejorative nick-names count as name-calling which is a C3 violation. This is not allowed anywhere except the Hell board, so don't do it again.

thanks
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Hosting off

Knock yourself out. If Dead Horses is meant to give a free leash to some to calumniate other Christian families without any expectation of backing it up, but highlighting the inherent hypocrisy is "name calling" then the game is rigged, and there's really no need to have the thread - certainly my presence is superfluous.

I signed on to keep the 10Cs and maintain an attitude of charity and openness to dialogue. But if the Hosts now interpret that as an obligation to pretend that what amounts to "my family is good because it's mine; yours is bad because it's yours" is not tinfoil-hat talk then evidently I no longer belong the community I once joined. You can stick to your guns no matter how damaging or heretical the implications or you can hock yourself to the press as a "reasonable conservative" (!) but you don't get to do both. Five hundred odd pages on has made it clear that it just makes some people feel good to set their families above others and to fashion for themselves a likeminded god, and logic doesn't really feature. If it's a violation to notice that, then the whole setup is in violation, for I'm certain it's no surprise to any but those who have determined not to see - and I understand and respect that you, Louise, are not in yourself in that number and are making the best of a very dirty job. I just fear my own capacity to sustain you in it is spent.

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Spike

Mostly Harmless
# 36

 - Posted      Profile for Spike   Email Spike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
LQ

You've been around long enough to know that the only place to challenge a Host is in The Styx. If you want to take it further, you'll have to wait for two weeks to do it.

Enjoy your holiday.

Spike
SoF Admin

--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing

Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But denying sexual fulfilment to homosexuals is - on the liberal argument - a suppression of their identity.

And the trouble with that argument is that there are hundreds of millions of heterosexuals who can claim they are denied "sexual fulfilment" as well.
... and, since the unwillingly single generally regret the absence of a partner more deeply than they would regret the absence of a bacon butty, that would seem to be evidence that sexual fulfilment is a greater part of our identity than bacon fulfilment.

Which seems to me a point to the liberals.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The idea would be more intriguing if homosexuality were unique to the human race.

It more or less is. As long as you count bonobos as human...

The idea that "gay" behaviour is widespread animals is mostly a mixture of misinterpretation and special pleading. I'm not saying there is nothing behind it but its heavily over-interpreted.

Can you unpick this a bit for me ken? It seems to fly in the face of a lot of research into same-sex attraction in other mammalian species. Or, if the same-sex proclivities of other mammals can't be counted as 'gay', then surely their opposite-sex proclivities shouldn't be counted as 'straight' either.

Can we sign up to agreeing that homosexual behaviour is restricted to humans, but so is heterosexual behaviour?

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
orfeo,

I am simply trying to explore the implications of the conservative view of homosexuality - where feeling homosexual attraction is not sinful, but acting on it is. This is not a view that I personally hold.

Sorry, I do understand that. I'm sorry if that came across as having a go at you personally, rather than having a go at the proposition.

It's probably something that I react to with great feeling because basically I tried to live the conservative viewpoint for quite a long time. And at times it was sheer psychological agony. I'm not saying that my life is a bed of roses now that my views have changed (now I just get to go through all the heartbreak shared by single people generally, and 'look forward' to all the troulbes of being a member of a couple one day), but there is something uniquely perverse about living with the sense that there is something so wrong with you that you are fated to always and forever be cut off from the world of intimate human relationships.

Which is pretty much what happened over time once (a) I had identified myself as gay, and (b) came to conclude that this was going to always be the case (note, this was actually a bit before I tried getting cured in a new fit of desperation) while still holding onto the conservative view that I couldn't act on my feelings.

If anything, it was my sense of integrity that did me in. I have actually met plenty of men who married their female best friend in the hope/wishful thinking that the deep non-erotic love they felt would 'cure' them of their erotic homosexual attractions, but I simply couldn't contemplate doing this. I couldn't imagine doing that to a woman - and in fact, for these men the most difficult part of 'coming out' was what they put their wives through. As it was, I apologised to my last girlfriend several years later, once I'd faced reality. We're probably even now, now that she's come out as a lesbian. [Big Grin]

But yes, the implications of that conservative view can be horrible. I can still vividly remember being at the wedding of 2 friends and thinking, "I can never have this". I can't join my life with another person like this. I spent the wedding, the following afternoon tea and the time afterwards spent with my best friend holding a torrent of emotion inside after thinking that thought. I didn't let it out until 8 or 9 hours later when I was alone, and then wept and wailed like you wouldn't believe.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are people whose mental process runs along the lines of "I'm not gay because being gay is not allowed", but I just didn't have the capacity to think like that. I actually do have a friend who DID think like that, and he fitted the stereotype of being particularly strong in his anti-gay stance, as a subconscious cover (including to himself) for the homosexual attraction lurking underneath. So we don't all respond in the same way.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955

 - Posted      Profile for beatmenace   Email beatmenace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From Wikipedia - so take it with the usual caution....
quote:
'Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom. A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species. Homosexual behavior is best known from social species.

According to geneticist Simon Levay in 1996, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries). "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams.'


So many animals are bisexual in that they show both Homo and Hetro sexual activity as occasion demands.

Apart from 10% of Rams that is.......

--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)

Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
One of the liberal arguments is based on 'identity'. Denying sexual fulfilment to gay people is bad because it is denying a part of their identity. And identity in this usage is something more than just the sum of your attributes.

(For comparison, I like bacon. If I went to live in Saudi Arabia, I would have to give it up, and this would be annoying, but it would not be denying a part of my identity. But denying sexual fulfilment to homosexuals is - on the liberal argument - a suppression of their identity.)

A conservative must deny that premise. I cannot think of any other case in which an urge is a.) considered sinful, b.) never acted upon, but c.) considered to be a component of your identity. Someone who wants to steal but doesn't is not a thief. Someone who wants to lie but doesn't is not a liar. They are not a liar precisely because they don't lie.

I don't accept alcoholism as a counter-example because alcoholism, AIUI, is an actual medical condition - an alcoholic who's given up drinking really is clinically different from a strict Muslim who has never drunk.

It's not so much that sex itself is important. It is very important to some people, not so much to others, and utterly irrelevant to other people, whether gay or straight. To me it's about the issue of self-determination rather than sex. I am fed up with hearing "sexual orientation is not an important part of my identity, and therefore it shouldn't be an important part of your identity either." The fact is that sexual orientation actually *isn't* an important part of *my* identity, but I don't believe in telling other people what they should see as important parts of themselves. So objecting to people saying "gay people are..." or "gay people should..." is not about asserting the individual's right to sex (because let's face it, nobody has a "right" to sex. If you can't find a consenting partner you're out of luck, whoever it is you fancy). It's about saying "other people in this society do not speak for me. They do not know who I am; nor can they tell me who I am. They are not in a position to tell me what is best for me. Society may have given them the impression - because of their own social privilege - that their opinion of me is more important than my own. This isn't true - I speak for myself."

This kind of happens, I think with all manner of disadvantaged groups. Someone could very well look on and say "does it really matter if black people need to sit in a particular place on the bus? They'll still get to the same destination." It comes from the same place as "civilly partnered gay people have all the same legal rights as married people - why would they care about the word?" The fact is that it is patronising and disempowering to pass judgement on what should be important to a member of a group that you're not in. Particularly when members of that group have to deal with struggles that are not part of your world.

So I would like to hear the question "why do you need to put the label of gay on yourself?" as a genuine question, rather than as a dismissive brush off. There are reasons.

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... and, since the unwillingly single generally regret the absence of a partner more deeply than they would regret the absence of a bacon butty, that would seem to be evidence that sexual fulfilment is a greater part of our identity than bacon fulfilment.

Which seems to me a point to the liberals.

Yes, but from the point of view of the other side, no reson to change their laws or customs to accomodate all those lonely people. After all the Roman Catholic church teaches that there is effectively no legitimate and non-sinful sexual behaviour at all available to a divorced man whose wife is remarried.

So its yet another argument that makes sense to those who already believe it but can never persuade their opponents.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
To me it's about the issue of self-determination rather than sex. I am fed up with hearing "sexual orientation is not an important part of my identity, and therefore it shouldn't be an important part of your identity either."

I'm not sure that's what they are saying. Its might be more like "sex is important to me but there are lots of things that I would like to do that are disapproved of or even banned. We all have restrictions on us, deal with them".

Where "they" is some mythical collection of socially conservative persons.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It would be really interesting to see what happened if societal disapproval was completely suspended for a length of time - my guess is that we would find there are way more gays and bisexuals than anyone ever imagined - some are just better than others at hiding their orientation in the face of societal expectations.

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
After all the Roman Catholic church teaches that there is effectively no legitimate and non-sinful sexual behaviour at all available to a divorced man whose wife is remarried.

Not true! A divorced man is legitimately allowed to have sex with his [ex-]wife in the eyes of the RCC, since according to Catholic reckoning they're still married.

What the new husband might think of this is another matter entirely!

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A divorced man is legitimately allowed to have sex with his [ex-]wife in the eyes of the RCC, since according to Catholic reckoning they're still married.

But it would still be legally adultery. Also if there were children of the new marriage it would of course be a sin to make them suffer by trying to break up their parents.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A divorced man is legitimately allowed to have sex with his [ex-]wife in the eyes of the RCC, since according to Catholic reckoning they're still married.

But it would still be legally adultery.
Well legally you're allowed to have all kinds of sex the Catholic Church doesn't approve of. Changing standards in mid-stream from "what's legitimate according to the Catholic Church" to "what's legitimate in the eyes of civil law" proves nothing beyond the already well-known fact that the Catholic Church and civil legal authorities disagree on sex.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
Peter Ould, Anglican priest, well-known blogger and Post-Gay activist has commented...

It's an interesting idea. I could call myself post-gay if I wanted to. In real life it is, at most, a minor part of my identity, and I haven't had sex in years. This is probably the path of least resistance for any unmarried 60-something. Heaven-only knows whether such casual, de-facto abstinence will prevent any divine wrath on judgment day, although to hear some folks talk it would have to. Along with straight people, I would like to see human rights for gays mainly because I think that it is the right thing to do.

It's nice to have the option of being post-gay, isn't it? There were times in living memory when I doubt that it was available. The lavender scare
of the 50s and 60s, for instance, did not depend on one's being caught in flagrante delicto. People could be ruined on mere suspicion or "reputation." Every ambitious man had to be careful to butch it up and watch how they used their hands in conversation. Marriages of convenience were par for the course. For the comfortable change in conditions that we enjoy today, I think that we have to thank those that did not become post-gay.

[ 20. April 2012, 23:32: Message edited by: Alogon ]

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290

 - Posted      Profile for Jahlove   Email Jahlove   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... and, since the unwillingly single generally regret the absence of a partner more deeply than they would regret the absence of a bacon butty, that would seem to be evidence that sexual fulfilment is a greater part of our identity than bacon fulfilment.

Which seems to me a point to the liberals.

Yes, but from the point of view of the other side, no reson to change their laws or customs to accomodate all those lonely people. After all the Roman Catholic church teaches that there is effectively no legitimate and non-sinful sexual behaviour at all available to a divorced man whose wife is remarried.

So its yet another argument that makes sense to those who already believe it but can never persuade their opponents.

ken, again, drags his RCCphobia into a discussion which has nowt per se to do with it. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain

Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

 - Posted      Profile for The Silent Acolyte     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Post-gay Fags

Funny that.

That's how I misread Peter Ould's url for hawking the yellowish standard Jones and Yarhouse ExGay Study (Stanton L. Jones & Mark A. Yarhouse. (2011). “A longitudinal study of attempted religiously-mediated sexual orientation change.” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Volume 37, pages 404-427.).

My university doesn't seem to want to subscribe to this periodical, but here is the giggle-inducing abstract one can get for free.
quote:
The authors conducted a quasi-experimental longitudinal study spanning 6–7 years examining attempted religiously mediated sexual orientation change from homosexual orientation to heterosexual orientation. An initial sample was formed of 72 men and 26 women who were involved in a variety of Christian ministries, with measures of sexual attraction, infatuation and fantasy, and composite measures of sexual orientation and psychological distress, administered longitudinally. Evidence from the study suggested that change of homosexual orientation appears possible for some and that psychological distress did not increase on average as a result of the involvement in the change process. The authors explore methodological limitations circumscribing generalizability of the findings and alternative explanations of the findings, such as sexual identity change or adjustment.
Fr. Ould opines in this post that "The only way [whether people could change their sexual orientation through therapy] could be answered definitively would be by a replicable controlled longitudinal study with an independent control group for comparison. Such a study has never been undertaken [because any Institutional Review Board would mock the proposed protocol right back to the stone-age where it belongs]."
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Welease Woderwick

Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424

 - Posted      Profile for Welease Woderwick   Email Welease Woderwick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An open letter:

Dear Peter Ould and like minded souls

I am really, and genuinely, pleased that you have found a spiritual path, and one that suits you. I wish you well on your spiritual journey.

I, too, am on a spiritual path and one that gives me a deal of joy. It is a different path from yours and within a different religious tradition. Within my tradition openness is the key - openness to the Spirit, openness to the diversity in the community, openness to the diversity within Creation.

To link to the OP allow me to tell you a little anecdote:

When I was working in the field of sexual health focused social work I once spent an afternoon in the company of an ex-gay man, a leading light of the ex-gay movement in the area where I lived and worked - he seemed to enjoy the time we spent together as he reminisced constantly about the good times he used to have “cottaging” here and there in our area; I have to confess that I was bored silly. He said he was happy as ex-gay though the way he acted made me feel rather differently about it - but I am willing to take what he said at face value, he was/is happy at being ex-gay.

Other people’s sex lives actually don’t interest me that much, I don’t spend much time speculating what other people get up to with one another. I don’t think God cares over much either. I don’t see God as the big accountant in the sky totting up columns of figures, pluses and minuses - that is a pretty sad sort of God! Let’s make a deal: you don’t think about my sex life and I won’t think about yours.

My problem arises when you try and tell me that I need to leave the path I am on and travel by your path - your personal take on the one, true path. Well, I don’t say that to you, I don’t believe there is one true path at all. I rejoice that you are on a path that suits you; I rejoice that there are so many different paths to suit all sorts and conditions of humanity - our needs are all a little bit different and so are our paths - and that is to the Glory of God!

Go well and, as Dave Allen, the Irish comedian, used to say, may your God go with you.

WW

--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details

What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?

Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482

 - Posted      Profile for Peter Ould   Author's homepage   Email Peter Ould   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Post-gay Fags

...

My university doesn't seem to want to subscribe to this periodical, but here is the giggle-inducing abstract one can get for free.

...

Fr. Ould opines in this post that "The only way [whether people could change their sexual orientation through therapy] could be answered definitively would be by a replicable controlled longitudinal study with an independent control group for comparison. Such a study has never been undertaken [because any Institutional Review Board would mock the proposed protocol right back to the stone-age where it belongs]."

Thanks for that brilliant display of bias there. Perhaps you'd like me to come back to you with a list of commonly accepted psychological therapies which don't have this level of research to validate them either? Are you suggesting that *all* these therapies (gestalt etc) should be banned, or only the ones that don't fit your dogma, regardless of the evidential base or otherwise?

[ 21. April 2012, 08:56: Message edited by: Peter Ould ]

Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

Jahlove - a gentle reminder.

A bald assertion that 'Ken is RCCphobic' is a personal attack and you have been here long enough to know that such statements can only be made in Hell posts.

Please bear this in mind - thank you.

Host Mode <DEACTIVATE>

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290

 - Posted      Profile for Jahlove   Email Jahlove   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
my apologies, ken and Tony

--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain

Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm still not attracted to the idea of sitting in brine.....

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Devils Advocate
Shipmate
# 16484

 - Posted      Profile for Devils Advocate   Email Devils Advocate   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
electric shocks, while pictures of naked men are shown, projected large size on to a screen. Electrode round one ankle. Very searing pain.

Hmm [Devil] Sounds fun to me LOL though I could find somewhere better for the electrodes [Devil] [Devil] [Devil]

A Gay Anglo Catholic (nough said)

--------------------
"Oh I have wrought much evil with my spells"

Posts: 97 | From: Lincs | Registered: Jun 2011  |  IP: Logged
Welease Woderwick

Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424

 - Posted      Profile for Welease Woderwick   Email Welease Woderwick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The real question is would sitting in brine with electrodes attached stop people being homophobic?

Can we run a trial group to see if it is worth applying for funding for full scale research into the topic?

Bags I have the rheostat first!

--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details

What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?

Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Devils Advocate
Shipmate
# 16484

 - Posted      Profile for Devils Advocate   Email Devils Advocate   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bags I have the rheostat first!


A magneto is far more effective [Devil]

--------------------
"Oh I have wrought much evil with my spells"

Posts: 97 | From: Lincs | Registered: Jun 2011  |  IP: Logged
whitebait
Shipmate
# 7740

 - Posted      Profile for whitebait   Email whitebait   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jeremy Marks has an interesting article that I almost missed in The Guardian "I tried to cure gay people"

I'd been following this thread with interest, but not knowing how to contribute. Jeremy's article puts it rather well.

I tried the "ex-gay" route, visiting Jeremy's organisation Courage (whilst it was still trying to "change" people); True Freedom Trust; and Living Waters. I went to monthly meetings for almost eight years. I read all the books - many of them from the USA, and many of those books and ministries influenced by a small booklet produced in 1983 by an English woman - Elizabeth Moberly.

She wrote about methods of therapy to change homosexuals. A lot of people believed her - or at least wanted to believe her.

After all those years I was no more heterosexual than when I started. Looking back, I'd describe myself as being in "asexual limbo"; repressing any gay thoughts as much as I could. I was losing hope - in everything.

There were a series of events that finally made me snap to my senses. I won't go into them all here, but I went through a period of intense questioning.

I questioned the reparative therapists who were (at the time) claiming a 30% success rate. Yet amongst all the hundreds (perhaps 300?) of men I'd met in the various ministries, perhaps only a handful had gone on to get married to a woman, and most of those admitted that they still "struggled".

I questioned the validity of Moberly's book, which seemed so crucial to many of the "reparative therapy" ministries. It turned out she had never tested her theories out before writing it - it was a summary of her thoughts having reviewed older psychotherapy texts and earlier thoughts of Freud. She wrote little else on the subject of reparative therapy.

And then there were those ex-gay ministry leaders, like Jeremy Marks (and numerous others), finally prepared to admit that the therapies just didn't work, and were in many cases harming folk. (Just this year, Alan Chambers, leader of the largest umbrella organisation "Exodus" admitted "99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their sexual orientation or have gotten to a place where they can say they have never been tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction".)

I'm really pleased to see that the tide has turned. Hopefully too, those facing this issue in UK churches now will no longer feel as much of the misguided homophobia of the past. Yet even in 2005, as I was leaving the church, I told my vicar I was gay, and he said "you can be cured of that". I did my best to correct him on that - I've no idea if he took it to heart.

--------------------
small fry on a journey

Posts: 151 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What? 137 posts and no "cure" in sight? Or is that "no cure insight"? "No insight into purported curers"?

The mind boggles. [Eek!]

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Earwig

Pincered Beastie
# 12057

 - Posted      Profile for Earwig   Author's homepage   Email Earwig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by whitebait:
I'm really pleased to see that the tide has turned. Hopefully too, those facing this issue in UK churches now will no longer feel as much of the misguided homophobia of the past. Yet even in 2005, as I was leaving the church, I told my vicar I was gay, and he said "you can be cured of that". I did my best to correct him on that - I've no idea if he took it to heart.

Thank you for sharing your experiences - I too hope that the tide has turned, and people no longer experience opinions like your ex-vicar's. He sounds like a right arse!

[ 24. April 2012, 11:43: Message edited by: Earwig ]

Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by whitebait:
I tried the "ex-gay" route, visiting Jeremy's organisation Courage (whilst it was still trying to "change" people); True Freedom Trust; and Living Waters. I went to monthly meetings for almost eight years. I read all the books - many of them from the USA, and many of those books and ministries influenced by a small booklet produced in 1983 by an English woman - Elizabeth Moberly.

She wrote about methods of therapy to change homosexuals. A lot of people believed her - or at least wanted to believe her.....I questioned the validity of Moberly's book, which seemed so crucial to many of the "reparative therapy" ministries. It turned out she had never tested her theories out before writing it - it was a summary of her thoughts having reviewed older psychotherapy texts and earlier thoughts of Freud. She wrote little else on the subject of reparative therapy

Glad you mentioned this - Moberley came across as caring rather than homophobic so lots of people liked her writing and searched into their own backgrounds to see if they had distant fathers. Most fathers WERE distat back in the day.

I know someone who has been so deeply damaged by Jeremy Marks that he cannot forgive him for changing his views and admitting that he'd got it wrong.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:
quote:
Originally posted by whitebait:
I'm really pleased to see that the tide has turned. Hopefully too, those facing this issue in UK churches now will no longer feel as much of the misguided homophobia of the past. Yet even in 2005, as I was leaving the church, I told my vicar I was gay, and he said "you can be cured of that". I did my best to correct him on that - I've no idea if he took it to heart.

Thank you for sharing your experiences - I too hope that the tide has turned, and people no longer experience opinions like your ex-vicar's. He sounds like a right arse!
Surely you mean 'tight arse'.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955

 - Posted      Profile for beatmenace   Email beatmenace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I know someone who has been so deeply damaged by Jeremy Marks that he cannot forgive him for changing his views and admitting that he'd got it wrong.

And there is the main point of this thread!

I think we are getting close to a consensus here - that these techniques have NEVER worked as they claim ie to 'make Gay people into Straight people'.

So should we consider 'Core Issues' and 'Anglican Mainsteam' to be Charlatans?

--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)

Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anyone see the interview in the Sunday Telegraph with the chap from Core Values. It came across more as an experience in search of a theology than any kind of coherent case. I tend to dislike existential tails wagging theological dogs on either side of this argument (or, indeed, on any theological issue), so wasn't terribly impressed by his 'case'; although moved by his testimony, to me that's all it was, and 'tis a dangerous thing IME (full irony intended!) to try to turn a testimony into a policy.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Link to the aticle referred to above

Another proponent of the distant father theory. His day was 'non-tactile' - most dads were like that until recently.

Worst of all, quoting Mainstream:
quote:
mental illness and substance abuse than heterosexuals” and that they are less likely to be faithful and more likely to experience domestic violence. And it states, as an alleged matter of fact, that homosexuals are more likely to molest children.
Duh. If LGBTs have a higher incidence of mental illness it surely comes from having to live in the closet or having to put up with religious nutters telling them that they are evil.

As for child abuse, the statistics simply do not back this up.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482

 - Posted      Profile for Peter Ould   Author's homepage   Email Peter Ould   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I know someone who has been so deeply damaged by Jeremy Marks that he cannot forgive him for changing his views and admitting that he'd got it wrong.

And there is the main point of this thread!

I think we are getting close to a consensus here - that these techniques have NEVER worked as they claim ie to 'make Gay people into Straight people'.

So should we consider 'Core Issues' and 'Anglican Mainsteam' to be Charlatans?

If the straw man that you wish to knock down is "100% gay to 100% straight", then the answer is an uncategorical "Yes". But if the question is "Does this therapy ever work in moving people some way along the gay/straight spectrum" then the Jones and Yarhouse study (which is the only longitudinal study on this - www.exgaystudy.org) posits a cautious "Yes, for a minority".

--------------------
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net

Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The link leads to a dead end, much like Mainstream. However, I'd like to read it if it exists.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's a rogue bracket at the end of the URL.

Try this.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Peter - I've had a brief look of the study and the claims it makes.

The claims they make are very tentative, of a self-selecting group, with a less-than 25% "success" rate (I use the quotes advisedly).

Given that cognitive therapies for behaviour change in other areas of psychiatry are recommended by NICE as effective - there is clear clinical evidence that such treatments are useful and effect desired change - why should anyone hang either their theology or their mental well-being on such flimsy work?

Furthermore, if I advertised a controversial treatment which had such limited outcomes, even if proven, why wouldn't I expect to be smacked down by both the ASA and the DoH?

It seems to me that if you convince people of the need to change (in this case, you insist their immortal souls are imperilled) and get only a marginal rate of them turning straight (almost as many decided that yes, they were gay and withdrew from the program), the therapy is really a bit rubbish.

And all this is leaving aside the notion that homosexual attraction is a sin.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482

 - Posted      Profile for Peter Ould   Author's homepage   Email Peter Ould   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that cognitive therapies for behaviour change in other areas of psychiatry are recommended by NICE as effective - there is clear clinical evidence that such treatments are useful and effect desired change - why should anyone hang either their theology or their mental well-being on such flimsy work?

Flimsy work? This is the best study done on the subject. If you want to suggest that such therapies *don't* work for a minority of participants, perhaps you'd like to point us to the longitudinal study (i.e. not just a collection of anecdotes) that demonstrates this.

quote:
Furthermore, if I advertised a controversial treatment which had such limited outcomes, even if proven, why wouldn't I expect to be smacked down by both the ASA and the DoH?


If there weren't any good studies, absolutely. But interestingly, Jones and Yarhouse reported the same level of "success" as Alcoholics Anonymous report....


quote:
It seems to me that if you convince people of the need to change (in this case, you insist their immortal souls are imperilled) and get only a marginal rate of them turning straight (almost as many decided that yes, they were gay and withdrew from the program), the therapy is really a bit rubbish.


Since I don't go around trying to convince people they need to change (and indeed I criticise those who constantly do), I think this comment demonstrates more of your prejudice then it does my stance.

quote:
And all this is leaving aside the notion that homosexual attraction is a sin.
Really? Gosh, where does the Bible say that? News to me...

--------------------
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net

Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools