"Severe Conservative" (His Words) Mr. Romney Also Severely Anti-Gay

[Jingthing]

Yes, I would support laws such as the one proposed in California to ban these harmful so called therapies. However, as long as they are legal, they are legal, so it is legal to do them and legal to give money to them. Also, a man (Romney although "some say" he may be a unicorn) who hopes to be president who gives personal money to such odious programs deserves to have his actions fully exposed, so the voters can decide what kind of man he really is.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Jen Jen ..... An outright ban on adults who volenter and desire this would require more than just some people being harmed in the procedure , plenty of people die from procedures all the time in hospitals and pretty much every drug you can think of kills a bunch of people not just because they are allergic either. The question would be is it complete quackery or does the therapy have such a high rate of harm to those who undertake it because of the therapy alone that it has the likelyhood of causing more harm than it does help.

This is pretty hard to establish , you can't say the suiside rate for example is the result of only the therapy as a Lawyer would point out that people who don't use it also commit suiside , you can't even say that if the suiside rate is higher than the overall population is much proof because a Lawyer would say that people who go to therapy in general have a likelyhood of higher suiside rates. People who undergo psycological therapy of many sorts often times are worse off during the therapy than when they started and if they quit may remain that way. So it's not exclusive to this particular therapy that people can end up harmed at some stage especially if they quit.

The question to ban it would revolve around how many people who actually finished, unless it was deemed unreasonable that finishing was even likely for the average person , were better off verses how many people who finished got no benefit at all or were worse off AND does the overall amount of harm justify taking away the possibility of help to those who ask for it. Like I said pretty much any hospital treatment that requires anethesia has a risk of death but we don't ban it because even though it kills people on occation the benefits outweigh the deaths.

I am for banning it for people who are forced into it like children , however my knowledge of the subject is far to limited to decide if people who want it sould be banned from asking for it ..... which is another way to look at it as opposed to banning the people from doing it , you would also be banning people who want it from being allowed to have it. I would be in favor of requirements and regulations that made absolutely sure that anyone who recieved it was fully informed as to the risks and sucsess rate by an independant doctor \ Psyciatrist ...... that alone would probabbly cut the number of people who wanted it in the end to near zero.

[LeCharivari]

... Do you think people who go to this therapy could be called homophobic homosexuals ? Seems to me that they are , but the whole concept is a little strange as well. ...

Not necessarily. They go to the therapy (assuming they go voluntarily) because they dislike their own sexual orientation - they may dislike other people's as well, but that's not necessarily so nor why they go. Technically they have an ego-dystonic condition (ego-dystonic homosexuality) rather than an ego-systonic one.

[LeCharivari]

Do you think it's time for such 'therapies' (!) to be banned ?!

If it is found out that (and, I think there is evidence this way, right ?) they cause psychological problems to people, of course, they should be banned

Banning voluntary conversion therapy / reparative therapy would be of both questionable success and legitimacy, as it could only be banned as far as it was intended to change sexual orientation, rather than to control or to suppress it. Any ban on that would be to deny the basic right to self-determination of sexual identity that all those arguing against it (including the notables here), the APA (and I'm sure the good ol' American Constitution somewhere) are so determined to protect.

The APA has come out strongly against the efficacy of conversion therapy to convert all but a few, as previously mentioned and linked to, but what the APA actually said* is, as always, slightly different to the reports of what they said about Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy (SOCE). Their findings (some of which I have put in bold) are below. The report itself is fairly simple and brief for anyone interested enough to read it before forming (and voicing) their opinion:

Recent studies of participants in SOCE identify a population of individuals who experience serious distress related to same sex sexual attractions. Most of these participants are Caucasian males who report that their religion is extremely important to them. These individuals report having pursued a variety of religious and secular efforts intended to help them to change their sexual orientation. To date, the research has not fully addressed age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, disability, language, and socioeconomic status in the population of distressed individuals.

There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation. Scientifically rigorous older work in this area found that sexual orientation (i.e., erotic attractions and sexual arousal oriented to one sex or the other, or both) was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Some individuals appeared to learn how to ignore or limit their attractions. However, this was much less likely to be true for people whose sexual attractions were initially limited to people of the same sex.

Although sound data on the safety of SOCE are extremely limited, some individuals reported being harmed by SOCE. Distress and depression were exacerbated. Belief in the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and negative self-image.

Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values. They did so in a variety of ways and with varied and unpredictable outcomes, some of which were temporary. Based on the available data, additional claims about the meaning of those outcomes are scientifically unsupported.

The claim that was most misleading in some of the reports was that it was the therapy which the APA saw as causing harm, while it was the failure of the therapy that was the problem - rather a different thing - and that the feeelings some had of "anger, anxiety, confusion, depression, grief, guilt, hopelessness, deteriorated relationships with family, loss of social support, loss of faith, poor self-image, social isolation, intimacy difficulties, intrusive imagery, suicidal ideation, self-hatred, and sexual dysfunction" were "countered by accounts of perceptions of relief, happiness, improved relationships with God, and perceived improvement in mental health status."

... and no, I don't think that pointing out the above makes me a "homophobic homosexual" - just an informed one.

*: http://www.apa.org/a...rientation.aspx

Edited June 1, 2012 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

Also misleading were the two links in the OP.

Contrary to what the links claim, neither Exodus International, nor Evergreen, nor other ex-gay organisations, promote the use of so-called "therapy" as a supposed cure for homosexuality or try to cure you. What they do is promote the therapy as a means to control or suppress sexual inclination and urges so that subjects can lead the life they want. Not the same thing at all.

I am not supporting what they do, but I am disappointed every time anyone has to resort to fabricating something (OK, lying) to support their position when there is ample room for criticism on other more valid grounds.

[Jingthing]

Also misleading were the two links in the OP.

Contrary to what the links claim, neither Exodus International, nor Evergreen, nor other ex-gay organisations, promote the use of so-called "therapy" as a supposed cure for homosexuality or try to cure you. What they do is promote the therapy as a means to control or suppress sexual inclination and urges so that subjects can lead the life they want. Not the same thing at all.

I am not supporting what they do, but I am disappointed every time anyone has to resort to fabricating something (OK, lying) to support their position when there is ample room for criticism on other more valid grounds.

OMG, now you are playing the role as an apologist for these anti-gay groups?

Incredible.

Exodus claims they want to help gay people OVERCOME their homosexual desires.

How is that not the same meaning as cure them of it?

I guess to the extreme pedantic they are different, but they invite gays to come in and they try to "help" not like the same sex anymore.

As far as Evergreen is concerned, their history is NOT flattering. SHOCK THERAPY, anyone? No, it didn't work but if it DID work and they could do it legally, trust me, they would still be doing it!

Evergreen, a group with ties to the Mormon Church, and Exodus International are two of the largest organizations reparative therapy organizatoins in the United States. The American Psychological Association does not recognize these programs. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness and is not listed in the DSM-IV.

http://suite101.com/...-therapy-a33025

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Also misleading were the two links in the OP.

Contrary to what the links claim, neither Exodus International, nor Evergreen, nor other ex-gay organisations, promote the use of so-called "therapy" as a supposed cure for homosexuality or try to cure you. What they do is promote the therapy as a means to control or suppress sexual inclination and urges so that subjects can lead the life they want. Not the same thing at all.

I am not supporting what they do, but I am disappointed every time anyone has to resort to fabricating something (OK, lying) to support their position when there is ample room for criticism on other more valid grounds.

OMG, now you are playing the role as an apologist for these anti-gay groups?

Incredible.

Do you ever think in that all too brief space between reading and posting, JT?

"I am not supporting what they do, etc". You may have no scruples with someone lying to support their case, JT, but I do - particularly when, with just a little research, valid arguments are available and lying isn't necessary.

Exodus claims they want to help gay people OVERCOME their homosexual desires.

How is that not the same meaning as cure them of it?

I guess to the extreme pedantic they are different, but they invite gays to come in and they try to "help" not like the same sex anymore.

As far as Evergreen is concerned, their history is NOT flattering. SHOCK THERAPY, anyone? No, it didn't work but if it DID work and they could do it legally, trust me, they would still be doing it!

Well, they're very different to the APA amongst others. Before saying that aversion therapy doesn't work, I would suggest that you do rather more homework than you have done so far as aversion therapy is still regularly used successfully for the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse with APA approval. Combined or (more usually now) replaced by psychotherapy it is used for the treatment of repeat sexual offenders, not to "cure" them as that is not considered possible but to help them to "control" and "suppress" their sexual urges.

Evergreen and Exodus use similar programmes with those they "invite" to join them voluntarily. I am NOT putting gays in the same category as sexual offenders, before you take that out of context, but I am simply pointing out that the treatment is the same to achieve a similar result: not a cure, but self-control of sexual urges they voluntarily WANT to control.

IF that treatment is what someone WANTS and they WANT to be able, for whatever reason, to have a straight relationship then I think they are entitled to do so, just as those who WANT to have a gay relationship should be entitled to do so.

I am disappointed, but hardly surprised, that someone who claims to champion the right to choice only does so when it is their choice that has to be respected, not others'.

"trust me" ... I don't think so.

[Jingthing]

I'm sure many Jews "volunteered" to be converted to Christians when living under the Spanish Inquisition.

I'm sure many modern day regular gay Iranians (not transgendered types) "volunteer" to cut off their penis to be converted to a woman.

For some gays growing up in severely homophobic environments in America (google Matthew Shepard), such as gay Mormon youth in rural Utah, they may as well be Jews living under the sword of the inquisitors. Where do you think they got the diseased idea that it was NOT OK to live life as a gay person?!? Fight oppressors, don't rationalize them!

Just asking as I'm curious, no need to answer. You're gay, right? Because I've met gay republicans before and they are unusual and bizarre, but I've never really met a gay man like you.

Is it possible that you personally have never experienced living in a severely homophobic environment, so you don't understand the issues of how gay people become the types that think being gay is not OK?

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Let's try to keep this rational without getting personal, just for a change.

Yes, I too am sure that many Jews chose to become Christians, but the circumstances were rather different to "gay Mormon youth in rural Utah"; I am not saying that the pressure they are put under is right, but they have considerably more choice particularly on mission than those under the inquisition. There is no comparison.

Iran has the second highest number of sex-change operations in the world behind Thailand, with a larger population. Contrary to some reports, GRS is not compulsory for those with GID, although the government do fund half the cost of the operations; the pressure is from their peers, but many are disowned by their families. Again, there is no comparison between this pressure and that in the USA, unpleasant though I am sure the USA can be.

Of course "Mormon youth" got the idea that they shouldn't be gay from their peers, their family and above all their church, but whatever you think about their beliefs those are the beliefs they want to live by. I would not agree under any circumstances with compulsory "treatment" as discussed above for anyone, and certainly not for those under 18, but I believe that if adults want to suppress or control their natural sexual urges they should be entitled to do so and given help by those they turn to - in this case, peers, family and church.

Am I gay? Yes, but by no means a Republican or even what you would regard as a Democrat - compared to most British/ European/Western/Australian politics your country's domestic politics (health care, taxation, education, social care, etc) are between extreme right wing and radically right wing.

Have I ever lived in a "severely homophobic environment"? That depends on your point of view. I spent 20 years in the British military (and others) at a time when homosexuality was not only banned but a Court Martial offence. As I never took a female partner to a single Mess function (Ladies Nights, Summer Balls, etc) it must have been fairly obvious that I was gay but the question, literally, never arose - I never denied being gay, but I never had to. I never "indulged" in the country I was in, but that was my choice - I got a lot of satisfaction from my job and had homosexuality been permitted (as it is now) I would still have applied the same restrictions as relationships and similar distractions and my particular job didn't mix. I chose that way of life and I think others should be allowed to choose theirs, and if that means prioritising and balancing their personal, social, sexual, religious and professional lives then how they do that should be their choice.

Every personal choice we make has its advantages and its disadvantages, whether its being a Mormon, a soldier, in a relationship, whatever; what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts. I don't see being gay as a choice just as I don't see race or ethnicity as a choice - its the way we're born - but how much that twist of nature defines our lives and controls our options where we do have a choice should be up to us.

[Jingthing]

Excuse me, but you grossly distorted the point I was making about Iran. You may want to read it again.

I NEVER said sex change was required for regular homosexuals. I am talking about regular homosexuals here, NOT about people who gender identity issues. I thought that was already quite clear in what I wrote, but for you, apparently not. Another "global" issue perhaps.

It is a known fact the some Iranian regular homosexuals are "CHOOSING" sex change operations because there only other choices are a life in the deep closet, no socially accepted social life, or being murdered either by the regime or by street actions. Don't you dare try to suggest Iran is "liberal" towards homosexuals.

I agree with you of course that the USA is a right wing country. Don't be shocked but most intelligent Americans fully understand that by European standards, Obama is a right winger, not a raving socialist as the far right (so well represented on thaivisa) seem to believe.

As far as replying to your other points, thanks for your response, but I have no interest in further commenting.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

My plea to keep things rational, not personal, was clearly wasted.

Excuse me, but you grossly distorted the point I was making about Iran. You may want to read it again.

I NEVER said sex change was required for regular homosexuals. I am talking about regular homosexuals here, NOT about people who gender identity issues. I thought that was already quite clear in what I wrote, but for you, apparently not. Another "global" issue perhaps.

What you wrote originally was clear, unlike the above which is appears to contradict what you meant to say. Hard to tell. I have never said or suggested Iran is anything but hostile to homosexuals - what I have repeatedly said, though, is that lying about Iran is counter-productive and totally unnecessary. That you disagree does not surprise me.

Maybe this topic, if it ever had a place here at all, has finally run its course and should be ended?

Edited June 3, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

What lie about Iran? You DID distort what I said. I was talking about regular homosexuals and it is NOT a lie that some of them are volunteering for sex change there because their other alternatives are even worse. I was NOT even addressing the situation of actual transgender people there (which BTW I HAVE posted about on a number of threads over the years and you are correct the government helps with surgery for THEM but I was NOT talking about them in THIS thread). Distorting my intent once is not good enough, eh?

Also, if you don't wish to post in this thread, fine. More than fine. As the OP I wish it to remain OPEN. Thank you. I do suggest getting back to the TOPIC though.

Reminder: the topic relates to Mr. Romney and his contributions to anti-gay "cure" therapy. The topic is NOT about Iran. There was a reference to Iran in an example. The intention was not to hijack the thread towards Iran talk. I hope that's settled now.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Jingthing