The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

[TimelessTheist]

I still don't see how that connects to reparative therapy.

Reparartive therapy is done with consent, and yet they successfully banned it in many states.

[Spartacus]

Reparartive therapy is done with consent, and yet they successfully banned it in many states.

Let me know when you've finished constructing the syllogism. I'm still not seeing how this particular rabbit hole matters.

[TimelessTheist]

Let me know when you've finished constructing the syllogism. I'm still not seeing how this particular rabbit hole matters.

You really don't understand this?

[TimelessTheist]

Eh, alright. Square-peg and others, say that homosexuality is morally okay because people consent to it, and it (supposedly) doesn't cause any harm, but they don't hold the same standard for the therapy, because people consent to that, and it holds no inherent harm, yet they want to, and have successfully in some areas, ban it.

[Spartacus]

You really don't understand this?

It seems to me that y'all are mostly just trying to attack each other's credibility, not actually presenting arguments relevant to how society should respond to homosexuality.

[TimelessTheist]

It seems to me that y'all are mostly just trying to attack each other's credibility, not actually presenting arguments relevant to how society should respond to homosexuality.

I was pointing out the double standards employed by the LGBT in the OP. Square-peg started the whole debate about the credibility of the therapy.

[Spartacus]

I was pointing out the double standards employed by the LGBT in the OP. Square-peg started the whole debate about the credibility of the therapy.

Reparative therapy very clearly has a mixed record at best; I don't see how that fact advances the argument of one side or the other in the end.

[TimelessTheist]

Reparative therapy very clearly has a mixed record at best; I don't see how that fact advances the argument of one side or the other in the end.

So does reparative therapy for alcoholism. The point is that when someone testifies to it working, they're still gay and they're just deluded, however, if someone attestifies to it being false, their testimony is automatically given precedent. Not to mention the double standard with the whole "Oh, if he had sex with women before, but then starts having sex with guys, he must have been gay all along." but if it happens the other way around, well, they must still be gay, and they're just denying their true selves. Both situations are based on the exact same amount of evidence, that is, testimony from people who have gone through it, but one is considered true, and the other false. Why?

[Spartacus]

So does reparative therapy for alcoholism. The point is that when someone testifies to it working, they're still gay and they're just deluded, however, if someone attestifies to it being false, their testimony is automatically given precedent. Not to mention the double standard with the whole "Oh, if he had sex with women before, but then starts having sex with guys, he must have been gay all along." but if it happens the other way around, well, they must still be gay, and they're just denying their true selves. Both situations are based on the exact same amount of evidence, that is, testimony from people who have gone through it, but one is considered true, and the other false. Why?

Part of it is the question of which case, given the culture of the past 50 years or so, is more likely to be a case of denial, part of it is just plain hypocrisy. But what has that to do with the question of how we form a comprehensive social response to homosexuality?

[TimelessTheist]

Part of it is the question of which case, given the culture of the past 50 years or so, is more likely to be a case of denial, part of it is just plain hypocrisy. But what has that to do with the question of how we form a comprehensive social response to homosexuality?

What does 'how to form a social response to homosexuality' have anything to do with this thread?

[Spartacus]

What does 'how to form a social response to homosexuality' have anything to do with this thread?

You mean this thread has nothing to do with how Christians should try to respond to the issues surrounding homosexuality? Then what, pray tell, is the point?

[Epoetker]

What significance does the reparative/conversion therapy question have for the overall debate? I'd take an answer from any corner on this, because right now it seems to me that y'all are fighting over a non-point.

No, we're fighting over the very core of this issue, and if you wish to actually see good people in power in the future, you will, publicly, work out the consequences of these decisions and how they play out in the real world.

To start off, all else being equal, if a previously stone cold sober former alcoholic goes out and has some drinks with friends, most people probably aren't going to say or expect that he's gone completely back to being his old carousing self unless he tries very, very hard to do it on a daily basis.

However, if an ex-gay goes out on the weekend to hit the bathhouses and public restroom, then yes, the assumption is, quite rightly, that he wasn't serious about his conversion. 99% of this has to do with the nature of the community he seeks. One can properly be understood to be a recognized public practice, one is private, exclusionary, and elitist by definition.

[Tassman]

Doesn't matter to the point at issue - reading comprehension is a thing for you, isn't it?

It totally addresses the point at issue.

APA - notoriously political

Nonsense! No major professional association is going to jeopardize its professional integrity and standing by playing politics. Especially the likes of the APA which is “the world's largest association of psychologists with around 137,000 members including scientists, educators, clinicians, consultants and students…” In short, a large and authoritative professional association.

Christian forums - you're kidding, right? You cited a forum as an authority on another forum?

No. I merely cited from Christian Forums a list of some of the professional health-care associations that support the APA on the matter of sexual orientation and the ineffectiveness and possible harmfulness of so-called reparative therapy.

But, if you prefer direct quotes:

American Psychiatric Association: “The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self hatred already experienced by the patient.”

American Psychological Association: “For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure”.

American Medical Association: “[We] oppose any psychiatric treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”

American Academy of Pediatrics: “Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation … can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

National Association of Social Workers: Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek potentially harmful sexual orientation changes.

All these and more are in agreement with virtually all their professional counterparts worldwide.

See?! Playing 'shoot the messenger' is easy - anyone can do it!

You’re propagating the wrong message.

[Tassman]

So are pedophiles, but if a bunch of them secured some territory and bought a bunch of kids from the third world to set up a pedophile society in peace, I'd still call for its destruction. There are more things in a civilized society than are ever dreamt of in your legalistic religion:

Active paedophilia is a criminal offence and for good reason. The issue under discussion concerns equal rights for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. This includes homosexual adults who enter into mutually consensual relationships.

[fm93]

You mean this thread has nothing to do with how Christians should try to respond to the issues surrounding homosexuality? Then what, pray tell, is the point?

He just wanted to slam people who hold different views of homosexuality than his own.

So does reparative therapy for alcoholism.

Alcohol rehabilitation therapy has been proven to work and is far, far more effective. Not to mention the main issue: alcoholism is inherently harmful and sufferers need to at least have a chance, whereas homosexuality is not inherently harmful and doesn't need to be "fixed" or changed.

The point is that when someone testifies to it working, they're still gay and they're just deluded, however, if someone attestifies to it being false, their testimony is automatically given precedent.

When after years of research you have no evidence that aliens came in contact with Earth and positive evidence that they couldn't have come in contact with Earth, and the people who testified that they had evidence for alien interaction were later found to be demonstrably mistaken or lying, you would naturally be skeptical when the latest person comes to you claiming to have seen an alien. At the very least, you might be open to the idea that this particular report might be real, but you'd still point out that the vast majority of new reports are likely to be false, based on what has repeatedly been shown over the years. Likewise with conversion therapy.

Not to mention the double standard with the whole "Oh, if he had sex with women before, but then starts having sex with guys, he must have been gay all along." but if it happens the other way around, well, they must still be gay, and they're just denying their true selves. Both situations are based on the exact same amount of evidence

No. The main reason is that no conclusive evidence has ever been found and that the vast majority of people do not/cannot change, so it's likely that reports of MSW-to-MSM change were instances of suppressed sexuality whereas MSM-to-MSW were instances of still being gay. That's not a double standard, because both conclusions are ultimately based on the same standard of research evidence. It's called finding the best explanation given the data. The many, many testimonies that have come in are confirmation that the explanation is correct.