Re: Marriage Equality Vote Today : Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:43 pm  

I've met many people who previously experienced same-sex attraction and called themselves gay. They are now Christians, have changed their ways and have solid heterosexual marriages.

Most armchair experts would say that they were never gay in the first place.

When is a No True Scotsman fallacy not a fallacy? When it's committed by liberal bigots, of course!

Re: Marriage Equality Vote Today : Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:48 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

It's not about minorities, you dolt. It's about peddling the idea that, not only is homosexuality a condition that requires a 'cure', but that they have the necessary expertise to deliver that cure. Homosexuality is a natural part of human variation. They might as well be advertising a 'cure' for black skin or ginger hair.

No I am afraid it goes much more deeply than homosexuality, it's about the principles on which any sustainable society needs to be based. It's about where lines are drawn. It's about freedom of expression. the fact that you refuse to see that shows that either you cannot see the bigger picture beyond the end of your nose or you just prefer name calling over inconsequential issues.

Re: Marriage Equality Vote Today : Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:51 pm  

Dally wrote:

It's about freedom of expression

so long as the freedoms being expressed fit in with your homphobis bigotry, you mean?

Re: Marriage Equality Vote Today : Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:54 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

I've met many people who previously experienced same-sex attraction and called themselves gay. They are now Christians, have changed their ways and have solid heterosexual marriages.

Most armchair experts would say that they were never gay in the first place...

Well indeed. They might be/have been bisexual.

Re: Marriage Equality Vote Today : Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:59 pm  

Dally wrote:

No I am afraid it goes much more deeply than homosexuality, it's about the principles on which any sustainable society needs to be based. It's about where lines are drawn. It's about freedom of expression. the fact that you refuse to see that shows that either you cannot see the bigger picture beyond the end of your nose or you just prefer name calling over inconsequential issues.

This shows either a misunderstanding of freedom of speech or a deliberate attempt to pretend that freedom of speech can exist in a vacuum that involves no responsibility.

So, in your version, it becomes entirely acceptable to yell 'fire!' in a crowded building.

There is no evidence that sexuality is something that is chosen, or that it is a disease and can be 'cured'. Experts in the field support this.

Thus to advertise such 'cures' would not only be in contravention of advertising standards etc, but more important in this sense, it could do damage to vulnerable people.

Re: Marriage Equality Vote Today : Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:01 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

...So, it's not a freedom of speech issue at all. It's about people promoting a 'therapy' that is not only likely to be psychologically harmful, but that is for a 'condition' that does not require 'therapy' at all. Not only should they not be allowed to advertise such a 'therapy', it should be banned altogether.

If it's harmful, I agree.

Re: Marriage Equality Vote Today : Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:14 pm  

Dally wrote:

No I am afraid it goes much more deeply than homosexuality, it's about the principles on which any sustainable society needs to be based. It's about where lines are drawn. It's about freedom of expression. the fact that you refuse to see that shows that either you cannot see the bigger picture beyond the end of your nose or you just prefer name calling over inconsequential issues.

It most assuredly is not about freedom of expression.

There are two issues. One is that it is not acceptable to refer to homosexuality as a disease any more than it would be acceptable to refer to black people as being 'disabled' solely by virtue of their skin colour. The other (and arguably the most important) is that, if you are going to advertise a 'therapy', it ought to be independently medically proven to work. And it ought to be for a condition for which therapy is required.

Because of people like you and Kirkstaller, there are gay people out there who are reluctant to admit their true sexuality, even to themselves (your son being a prime example of this). These people are vulnerable to scumbags like those in the article and could be subjected to great psychological harm in an attempt to make themselves more 'normal'. What homosexual people who are struggling with their sexual identity need is help and support to accept who they are and to be comfortable with the way they were born. They don't need telling that they have a disease and that they can simply 'pray the gay away'.

Re: Marriage Equality Vote Today : Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:21 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

If it's harmful, I agree.

Well, I'd imagine that those taking advantage of such a 'service' won't be people who are secure and happy in their sexuality. The 'therapy' is likely to be accessed by those who have been brought up/brainwashed to believe that being gay is in some way immoral or abnormal, and who are struggling to reconcile this with the feelings they're experiencing. The vast majority are probably already in a great deal of emotional turmoil, and for a bunch of religious nuts to then set about 'curing' them of their homosexuality would be as good a definition of harmful as one could imagine.

Re: Marriage Equality Vote Today : Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:24 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

If it's harmful, I agree.

If someone is LGB – or thinks they may be – and is so unhappy with this that they are likely to consider a 'cure', then it would seem fair to consider them as vulnerable and not in a particularly healthy mental/emotional state.

This sort of thing exploits that – and could do real harm.

Re: Marriage Equality Vote Today : Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:56 pm  

Mintball wrote:

If someone is LGB – or thinks they may be – and is so unhappy with this that they are likely to consider a 'cure', then it would seem fair to consider them as vulnerable and not in a particularly healthy mental/emotional state.

This sort of thing exploits that – and could do real harm.

I might set up a charity "curing" poor deluded souls that believe in the Sky Pixie, do you think I'd get a Lottery grant?