Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

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...

---

quote:

---

Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:
That would be the phrase used by the APA. ...
From their Task Force report on Reparative Therapy.

---

From the executive summary of said report:

quote:

---

The task force conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.
...
Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.

---

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

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...

---

quote:

---

Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

---

There is nothing in the above about homosexual acts, only experiencing homosexual attraction--"burning" in the same way that other unmarried people do, hence marriage (according to the same author). Only for us, there's no safety valve for our "error", only a meet recompence-- evidently a euphemism for divine wrath and damnation.

We have been tasked many times with this and neighboring verses. These scrupulous folks are even apt to tar any straight sympathizer with gay people with the same brush.

But clearly you understand it better than I, since you have an exegesis that overlooks it, or at least its obvious meaning, while remaining bothered by Paul's other statements on the subject. How do you do it?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Jones and Yarhouse had no agenda. When they contacted Exodus to get members for the research they warned that they would publish regardless of the outcome (i.e. if the research showed that the therapy didn't work they would report as such).

---

They were, however, a very safe pair of hands.

Stanton L. Jones is provost and professor of psychology at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois.

Mark A. Yarhouse (Psy.D., Wheaton College) is professor of psychology and Hughes Chair of Christian Thought in Mental Health Practice at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Both Wheaton and Regent are private Christian colleges, one closely associated with Billy Graham, the other set up by Pat Robertson.

They are not independent voices.

So now I'm thinking, if you knew that where they work and chose not to say, why is that?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:
So on this basis Prof Michael King here in the UK cannot have anything worthy to say on the subject because he is gay and politically active?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:
But interestingly, go and find the footnotes which refer to which studies on "harm" and which studies on "efforts to change sexual orientation" were referenced. Did they cite Jones and Yarhouse? How many of the studies on "harm" were self-selecting?

---

quote:

---

The task force examined the peer-reviewed journal articles in English from 1960 to 2007, which included 83 studies. Most of the studies were conducted before 1978, and only a few had been conducted in the last 10 years. The group also reviewed the recent literature on the psychology of sexual orientation.

---

quote:

---

"Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome."
...
"In other words," Glassgold said, "we recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality."

---

quote:

---

Don't get me wrong, I'm very clear that the evidence is that reparative therapy doesn't work for most participants (if work is defined as shifting sexual orientation), but the standards of evidence required to prove "harm" seemed to be much less then the standards demanded to prove "change".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
...
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27 ESV)
...

---

I would just like to point out that in both those versions, reference is made to "leaving" or "exchanging" natural practices. So the men were previously having sex with women, and vice versa. What makes you so sure that the sin isn't straight people indulging in a bit of gay sex, and has nothing to do with gay people? OliviaG

PS Oh, and "natural use of the woman"?

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
...
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27 ESV)
...

---

I would just like to point out that in both those versions, reference is made to "leaving" or "exchanging" natural practices. So the men were previously having sex with women, and vice versa. What makes you so sure that the sin isn't straight people indulging in a bit of gay sex, and has nothing to do with gay people? OliviaG

PS Oh, and "natural use of the woman"?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The "due penalty" - antimisthian - literally "response" - is linked grammatically to the committing shameless acts (aschemosunen katergazomenoi = lit. "accomplish shame") and not the lust.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
...
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27 ESV)
...

---

I would just like to point out that in both those versions, reference is made to "leaving" or "exchanging" natural practices. So the men were previously having sex with women, and vice versa. What makes you so sure that the sin isn't straight people indulging in a bit of gay sex, and has nothing to do with gay people? OliviaG

PS Oh, and "natural use of the woman"?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cadfael:

quote:

---

The "due penalty" - antimisthian - literally "response" - is linked grammatically to the committing shameless acts (aschemosunen katergazomenoi = lit. "accomplish shame") and not the lust.

---

You are quite the master of blame and judgement of others, but not so sharp on the sin and suffering that comes from the promulgation and fearful receipt of those notions. there is a different way to think about this:

Tony Campolo on the story of a gay son

I love the way this undermines the pernicious "hate the sin" line you are peddling. Accept a new judgement, Christ's absolute surrender treaty. It goes this way:

Examine yourself. Love others.
No terms.

C.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
...
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27 ESV)
...

---

I would just like to point out that in both those versions, reference is made to "leaving" or "exchanging" natural practices. So the men were previously having sex with women, and vice versa. What makes you so sure that the sin isn't straight people indulging in a bit of gay sex, and has nothing to do with gay people? OliviaG

PS Oh, and "natural use of the woman"?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

"Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome."
...
"In other words," Glassgold said, "we recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality."

---

ISTM they're saying the problem isn't the person's sexuality, but rather the religious beliefs that are causing the client distress over their sexuality i.e. there's no point changing the light bulb that *is* working.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27 ESV)

Notice the chain: consumed with passion => committing shameless acts => receiving in themselves the due penalty for the error.

What was the error? To be consumed with passion or to commit shameless acts?

The Greek tells us easily,

"Arsenes en arsesin ten aschemosunen katergazomenoi kai ten antimisthian en edei tes planes auton en heautois apolambanontes"

(Apologies for quick transliteration, but this forum doesn't appear to handle Greek...)

The "due penalty" - antimisthian - literally "response" - is linked grammatically to the committing shameless acts (aschemosunen katergazomenoi = lit. "accomplish shame") and not the lust.

---

quote:

---

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cadfael:

quote:

---

The "due penalty" - antimisthian - literally "response" - is linked grammatically to the committing shameless acts (aschemosunen katergazomenoi = lit. "accomplish shame") and not the lust.

---

You are quite the master of blame and judgement of others, but not so sharp on the sin and suffering that comes from the promulgation and fearful receipt of those notions. there is a different way to think about this:

Tony Campolo on the story of a gay son

I love the way this undermines the pernicious "hate the sin" line you are peddling. Accept a new judgement, Christ's absolute surrender treaty. It goes this way:

Examine yourself. Love others.
No terms.

C.

---

I am absolutely NOT going to debate with a person who imputes to me theological positions I do not hold and who then insults me on the basis of those positions.

Grow up.

---

quote:

---

3. Attack the issue, not the person

Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.

4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cadfael:

quote:

---

The "due penalty" - antimisthian - literally "response" - is linked grammatically to the committing shameless acts (aschemosunen katergazomenoi = lit. "accomplish shame") and not the lust.

---

You are quite the master of blame and judgement of others, but not so sharp on the sin and suffering that comes from the promulgation and fearful receipt of those notions. there is a different way to think about this:

Tony Campolo on the story of a gay son

I love the way this undermines the pernicious "hate the sin" line you are peddling. Accept a new judgement, Christ's absolute surrender treaty. It goes this way:

Examine yourself. Love others.
No terms.

C.

---

I am absolutely NOT going to debate with a person who imputes to me theological positions I do not hold and who then insults me on the basis of those positions.

Grow up.

---

quote:

---

3. Attack the issue, not the person

Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.

4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27 ESV)

Notice the chain: consumed with passion => committing shameless acts => receiving in themselves the due penalty for the error.

What was the error? To be consumed with passion or to commit shameless acts?

The Greek tells us easily,

"Arsenes en arsesin ten aschemosunen katergazomenoi kai ten antimisthian en edei tes planes auton en heautois apolambanontes"

(Apologies for quick transliteration, but this forum doesn't appear to handle Greek...)

The "due penalty" - antimisthian - literally "response" - is linked grammatically to the committing shameless acts (aschemosunen katergazomenoi = lit. "accomplish shame") and not the lust.

---

How do you square that interpretation with the much stricter saying of Jesus in Matt 5:28?

quote:

---

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
How do you square that interpretation with the much stricter saying of Jesus in Matt 5:28?

quote:

---

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

---

So we're all adulterers at heart, regardless of our sexuality. Jesus' point is simply that sin is not so much about what we do but simply who we are.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
How do you square that interpretation with the much stricter saying of Jesus in Matt 5:28?

quote:

---

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

---

So we're all adulterers at heart, regardless of our sexuality. Jesus' point is simply that sin is not so much about what we do but simply who we are.

---

Okay, but you're specifically saying that homosexual attraction isn't a sin, homosexual acts are.

It seems to me that Jesus is saying that heterosexual attraction (to someone who isn't their wife) is as bad as an adulterous act. The thought in question probably goes beyond the "what a pleasant-mannered and attractive woman" to the "I'd like to give her a right seeing to", but it clearly indicates that a thought - even if it doesn't precede the act - is sinful.

This is clearly a hard saying, but I think the Matthew verse does have a bearing on the interpretation of Romans 1.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, but you're specifically saying that homosexual attraction isn't a sin, homosexual acts are.

It seems to me that Jesus is saying that heterosexual attraction (to someone who isn't their wife) is as bad as an adulterous act. The thought in question probably goes beyond the "what a pleasant-mannered and attractive woman" to the "I'd like to give her a right seeing to", but it clearly indicates that a thought - even if it doesn't precede the act - is sinful.

This is clearly a hard saying, but I think the Matthew verse does have a bearing on the interpretation of Romans 1.

---

No. he's not saying that. He's saying that lusting after a woman is a sinful thing. However at the same time the Bible clearly says that sex within marriage (and the desire to have sex within marriage) is a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Compare this to one form of sex outside of marriage (sex between two people of the same sex) which the Bible always says is a bad thing.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's a legitimate area of disagreement. I think the Bible has lots to say about straights engaging in orgiastic rituals where slaves and temple prostitutes are abused. I don't think it has much relevance to people with what we currently understand as a homosexual orientation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's a legitimate area of disagreement. I think the Bible has lots to say about straights engaging in orgiastic rituals where slaves and temple prostitutes are abused. I don't think it has much relevance to people with what we currently understand as a homosexual orientation.

---

*Snigger*

I never get tired of this one and I'll play any time of the day.

Come on, enlighten us. Where does the Bible talk about "straights engaging in orgiastic rituals where slaves and temple prostitutes are abused"? We're all dying to know.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's a legitimate area of disagreement. I think the Bible has lots to say about straights engaging in orgiastic rituals where slaves and temple prostitutes are abused. I don't think it has much relevance to people with what we currently understand as a homosexual orientation.

---

*Snigger*

I never get tired of this one and I'll play any time of the day.

Come on, enlighten us. Where does the Bible talk about "straights engaging in orgiastic rituals where slaves and temple prostitutes are abused"? We're all dying to know.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Ould:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's a legitimate area of disagreement. I think the Bible has lots to say about straights engaging in orgiastic rituals where slaves and temple prostitutes are abused. I don't think it has much relevance to people with what we currently understand as a homosexual orientation.

---

*Snigger*

I never get tired of this one and I'll play any time of the day.

Come on, enlighten us. Where does the Bible talk about "straights engaging in orgiastic rituals where slaves and temple prostitutes are abused"? We're all dying to know.

---

Fine. So you have all the answers you need. You see no reason to put a manuscript in its historical context, especially where you have a vested interest in interpreting the text in one particular way.

The rest of us, not so much. I certainly think that not to do look at the cultural, political and religious context of Bible passages risks abusing the text.

Greco-Roman temple worship sometimes involved pederasty and anal sex, something attested to by contemporary accounts and the interpretations of the Romans 1 text by the early church. There didn't appear to be any culturally-defined homosexual culture in the 1st century near east - as I understand it, as long as Roman men married and produced offspring, they could pretty much sleep with who they wanted, male or female. And sodomising those of a lower social rank was one particular way of demonstrating your power.

I think it much more likely that Paul was writing against this widespread and pervasive behaviour than he was about addressing a tiny minority of exclusively-homosexual persons who, due to the mores of the dominant culture, could effectively swim unseen in society.

Now, whether you could argue that Paul's prohibition on same-sex acts extends to those early Christians with a homosexual attraction, essentially leaving them with two choices - marriage or celibacy - is a follow-on debate and not Paul's primary concern.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The Galli not only castrated themselves but emphasized their artificial femininity through feminine dress and manners, so their high-pitched voices, long wild hair, and garish costume made them instantly recognizable. Moreover, the implicit degradation of such female appearance reinforced popular assumptions about their licentious behavior. Their castrated status made it impossible for them to reproduce, but this did not appear to inhibit their sexual appetites or keep them from erotic liaisons with both men and women. Numerous anecdotes and references portray the Galli as the purveyors of offbeat sexual activities, clearly exciting to respectable people. ... We receive the impression that the ambiguous sexual status of the Galli was precisely the thing that made them covertly attractive.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

The Galli not only castrated themselves but emphasized their artificial femininity through feminine dress and manners, so their high-pitched voices, long wild hair, and garish costume made them instantly recognizable. Moreover, the implicit degradation of such female appearance reinforced popular assumptions about their licentious behavior. Their castrated status made it impossible for them to reproduce, but this did not appear to inhibit their sexual appetites or keep them from erotic liaisons with both men and women. Numerous anecdotes and references portray the Galli as the purveyors of offbeat sexual activities, clearly exciting to respectable people. ... We receive the impression that the ambiguous sexual status of the Galli was precisely the thing that made them covertly attractive.

---

In Search of God the Mother -
The Cult of Anatolian Cybele


If Paul were around today, he would probably object to Kathoey and Hijra. OliviaG

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Without going too much off-topic, I am not sure that there is a "cure" for gayness. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, I don't know.

But even if it can be proved that gay cures don't work, it doesn't necessarily mean that gay behaviour is right and acceptable to God.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Without going too much off-topic, I am not sure that there is a "cure" for gayness. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, I don't know.

But even if it can be proved that gay cures don't work, it doesn't necessarily mean that gay behaviour is right and acceptable to God.

---

Gay behaviour?

Please expand on this. I'm all agog. If it doesn't involve mincing down the high street and singing showtunes, I'll be disappointed.

---

quote:

---

Focus in the Family and Exodus have expended a great deal of resources to develop the phrases and the terminology they use. In doing so, they’ve crafted an entire language, complete with its own lexicon and syntax. For example, the terms they used for describing gay people were very different from yours or mine, and Mike Haley’s problem with “love the sin, hate the sinner” provides a glimpse into that difference. Their language is specially designed to treat people and their sexuality as if they were two completely separate entities, as if sexuality were a separate thing outside of the person. As Melissa Fryrear put it in a breakout session, they constantly work to “separate the ‘who’ from the ‘do’,” or, as others have put it more crudely in Mike Haley’s example, “the sinner” from “the sin”.

<snip>

Since the language of Love Won Out represents a distinct dialect of Evangelical Christianity, the first order of business for the day was to teach us the elements of that dialect. First up was Dr. Nicolosi. He began his talk by proclaiming that “there is no such thing as a homosexual.” Knowing this was a head-scratcher to most people there, he repeated it again: “There is no such thing as a homosexual… He is a heterosexual, but he may have a homosexual problem.”

So here’s the first lesson: the words “gay,” “lesbian,” and “homosexual” aren’t nouns; they’re adjectives. And even as an adjectives they are never used to describe a person. There are no gay teenagers, there are no homosexual men, there are no lesbian women. Instead these adjectives are always used as modifiers to something else: a problem, a struggle, an identity, or an issue that is separate from the person. This is important because it’s very different from how these terms are normally used in the broader culture. It is also very different from how these terms are used even by other anti-gay activists.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The problem then becomes when the "OTHER PEOPLE" persuade gay and lesbian people to internalize the anti-gay agenda and waste time -sometimes years- hating and rejecting an integral part of themselves.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The title of the thread is "Anyone know any 'cured' gay folk?"

It isn't "Is it possible to 'cure' gay people."

We had better comply, otherwise we will lose the thread.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The problem then becomes when the "OTHER PEOPLE" persuade gay and lesbian people to internalize the anti-gay agenda and waste time -sometimes years- hating and rejecting an integral part of themselves.

---

...But, love them or loathe them, I don't think anyone would attempt to 'cure' a gay person unless that person wanted to be cured.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

...But, love them or loathe them, I don't think anyone would attempt to 'cure' a gay person unless that person wanted to be cured.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Mark Betts:

quote:

---

...But, love them or loathe them, I don't think anyone would attempt to 'cure' a gay person unless that person wanted to be cured.

---

"Anyone"? You think not? You haven't heard of teenagers being sent to gay-cure boot camps?

ETA: Cross posted with Croesos.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Mark Betts:

quote:

---

...But, love them or loathe them, I don't think anyone would attempt to 'cure' a gay person unless that person wanted to be cured.

---

"Anyone"? You think not? You haven't heard of teenagers being sent to gay-cure boot camps?

ETA: Cross posted with Croesos.

---

Maybe it's because I'm from across the pond!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Mark Betts:

quote:

---

...But, love them or loathe them, I don't think anyone would attempt to 'cure' a gay person unless that person wanted to be cured.

---

"Anyone"? You think not? You haven't heard of teenagers being sent to gay-cure boot camps?

ETA: Cross posted with Croesos.

---

Maybe it's because I'm from across the pond!

---

Right, the country that drove Alan Turing to suicide for being gay. What's amazing is the way the criminalization of homosexuality has just fallen down the memory hole (a reference originating on your side of the Pond) along with electroshock and other attrocities despite being enforced within living memory.

Criminal penalties for homosexual acts are of a piece with gay conversion therapy. They're both premised on the idea that homosexuality is essentially a choice, so if you just change around the incentives enough a gay person will simply "choose" to straighten out. The only thing that's changed is the latitude society is willing to extend to these quacks and zealots, not their eagerness.

---