Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[inked]

Hey, speaking of governments and ignorance...

A Government campaign in Italy: http://courageman.blogspot.com/2007/...uscan-sun.html



So, it would appear that we have governments willing to support anything on either side of the aisle on this matter, regardless of data.

The data are definitely NOT THERE to support this campaign. It's a nice sentimental scientism at work, but not hard science with demonstrated correlations. Unless you are also willing to accept "the God gene" and various other pseudoscientific hypotheses.

On-going study certainly indicates that evaluation is in progress. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY of this allegation.

[GrayMouser]

Execution for homosexuals is too extreme- they should only be locked up.

"Texas Sodomy Statutes - We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy."

Texas Republican Party Platform 2006.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

The data are definitely NOT THERE to support this campaign.

Sexual orientation is probably not something you are born with.

That said, as I've stated elsewhere, the word "choice" is very misleading since all of our choices in life are extremely, and maybe even completely, governed by influences that we do not control.

The problem is that they are making a distinction between genetic inheritance and social inheritance where there should not be one.

So "sexual orientation is not a choice" is an accurate statement, but only because nothing in life is a choice.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Execution for homosexuals is too extreme- they should only be locked up.

"Texas Sodomy Statutes - We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy."

Texas Republican Party Platform 2006.

Well as far as the republican party is concerned they are all deviant democrats anyway. (Theres no gays in the republican party*laughter*...)

[Nurvingiel]

Inked, even though someone's blog != a source of actual news, I actually agree with you! I'm as shocked as you are.

As far as I know, there isn't data to support that you're born with a certain sexual orientation. (That data also lacks to say you're not.) Data is also lacking to say whether or not your sexual orientation is a choice.

Personally, none of that matters to me because I think all sexual orientations are fine regardless, but some people really hang their arguments (both pro and con) on this.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Somehow I find it a little reassuring that the public laughed at such an ignorant statement.

So if you don't have them in Iran, then why exactly are you hanging these people? Riiiiight. Another idiot in denial.

I've met a number of really awesome Persians, and it must suck for them that they have such a lousy government. Ditto for Americans, though at least they are as bad.

But that's another thread.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Inked, even though someone's blog != a source of actual news, I actually agree with you! I'm as shocked as you are.

As far as I know, there isn't data to support that you're born with a certain sexual orientation. (That data also lacks to say you're not.) Data is also lacking to say whether or not your sexual orientation is a choice.

Actually, there is data available that I came across recently. I found a report published in the American Psychological Association that argues, based on the results of seven or eight studies (or so), that therapies that help change people from homosexual to heterosexual have worked. It says that a small minority of people that go through such programs have been harmed by their experience, and that a number of people don't experience any major change, but there also is a very large number of people (at least half of those that go through the program) that claim to have changed very much as a result of those programs.

What that word "change" means varies some from person to person. With some the change is more pronounced than with others. But the report urges that some people that want to change should be referred to such therapies, because they have strong psychological benefits for those that go through them. I presume that those benefits involve stress relief, greater comfort with self, etc. The report also advises that other people should not be referred to such therapies, but instead to groups that are accepting of homosexuality, because those people would probably (according to the report) be more likely damaged than aided by the attempt at change. People that have strong religious convictions which run into conflict with their sexual desires are those that are primarily urged to take advantage of those therapies, because psychological damage occurs when one's religious beliefs are in conflict with one's sexual orientation.

It's a pretty long report, but I read it all. I'll find it again and cite it, in case anyone's interested in reading it. I found it highly illuminating.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually, there is data available that I came across recently. I found a report published in the American Psychological Association that argues, based on the results of seven or eight studies (or so), that therapies that help change people from homosexual to heterosexual have worked. It says that a small minority of people that go through such programs have been harmed by their experience, and that a number of people don't experience any major change, but there also is a very large number of people (at least half of those that go through the program) that claim to have changed very much as a result of those programs.

"Worked" is a tricky term. There is no doubt that people can be changed through therapy (or "reprogramming", depending on one's point of view ). The question is whether they should be.

Think about it in another situation: If you lived in Saudi Arabia as a christian, you'd be subjected to a lot of stresses a muslim, who is a part of the majority, would not be. One way to approach this problem would be therapy to convert you to the muslim faith. If done in a positive way, it would probably work and lead to a much less stressful life for you over there.

Another approach would be to give the therapy to the muslims who are giving you stress about being a christian.

I know which approach I'd choose, if I could.

The report you cite also proves my point that we don't make choices, but instead make our decisions based on external influence. One "decides" to go to therapy because of the stresses society places upon them, and they change as a result of that therapy. Without the external pressures, there would be no change.

[Lief Erikson]

I don't see how that follows. The studies the report cited didn't attempt to differentiate between those whose religious motivations were born entirely from external pressures and those in whom it's all personal conviction. I think there often is a blend of the two, anyway.

As regards stress, I think it can be either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on who's feeling it and why. It can lead people to make either good decisions or bad ones.

[Insidious Rex]

And who or what defines what is "good" or "bad" exactly? Homosexual "cure" programs have largely been shown to be ineffective in that they dont erase the underlying homosexual feelings. But instead they may teach people who are so inclined to successfully lead a "heterosexual" lifestyle complete with wife, kids etc. If someones religious upbringing and indoctrinization have made them a neurotic mess because their natural homosexual feelings seem to be in conflict with the religious dogma they have been taught then “converting” to being straight is certainly one option. But it should be made clear this is more of a masking then a true transformation of ones basic feelings and desires. Those who are good at denial usually are more successful at it then others.

[Lief Erikson]

Actually, changes of desires and instincts were found to occur among a significant number of those that went through the therapies. The degree to which homosexual thoughts went away varied from person to person. Some reckoned themselves to have experienced only a little change, others a dramatic change, and some no change. With some people, the change became even more pronounced after they left the therapies, while with others, they reverted back to old ways.

But changes in thoughts or feelings certainly was taken into account in the program, in spite of there not always being a "perfect fix."

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't see how that follows.

It's an analogy!

The point is, who needs to change?

I think that if people were taught to be more tolerant of homosexuals, 90% of the issues this study claims to "fix" wouldn't be issues in the first place.

[Lief Erikson]

It doesn't seem very "tolerant," does it, to demand that these people change their attitudes instead of their orientation?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It doesn't seem very "tolerant," does it, to demand that these people change their attitudes instead of their orientation?

I think it's the essence of what tolerance is.

In a perfect world I guess people would all be the same, but that's not the world we live in. Tolerance is living with differences that we don't agree with, but that also don't really effect us personally in one way or another on a day to day basis. It's looking for a change in attitude as opposed to a change in action.

It wouldn't really effect me one way or another if one of my neighbors was homosexual, but it would effect him or her if I decided to make a public issue out of the fact. The former is tolerance, because I'm not gay and don't relate in any way to the lifestyle, but if they are good people, I live and let live. The latter is intolerant because I am not reacting to anything that my neighbor has actually done to me or those I care about, I am mearly reacting to his or her orientation. I'm assuming that there must be something wrong, eventhough I don't see it.

Something like sexual orientation is as deeply ingrained in an individual as religious orientation and, while we certainly could deprogram people so that they all followed the same sexual tendencies, I see it as draconian compared to the idea of simply dealing with the differences unless and until they cause real issues.

There's nothing wrong with being a muslim unless you are one of the small percentage that becomes a terrorist. In the same light, there's nothing wrong with being homosexual, or heterosexual for that matter, unless there are real issues connected with it.

Basically, think of people as individuals instead of categories. That's tolerance.

[inked]

NURV!

Yes, data is data. No data is no data. Allegation is allegation.

In view of the latter, "I've met a number of really awesome Persians, and it must suck for them that they have such a lousy government. Ditto for Americans, though at least they are as bad."

Clarify: they are as ignorant? they are as awesome? they are as bad(=wicked=good)? Or, was this some sort of Canadianism? Canuckism?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think it's the essence of what tolerance is.

In a perfect world I guess people would all be the same, but that's not the world we live in. Tolerance is living with differences that we don't agree with, but that also don't really effect us personally in one way or another on a day to day basis.

Exactly, that's what I thought you meant by tolerance. What I was saying is that if people want to change their own personal sexual orientations instead of their religious beliefs, wouldn't it be "tolerant" for a psychologist they're seeing to put all the options on the table for such a person and let him choose between them, as opposed to only recommending groups that will try to help change the person's religious outlook?

That's what I was talking about.

And wouldn't it be more "tolerant" for those who find homosexuality an acceptable form of behavior to be accepting of people's decision if they want to change to heterosexual? Since tolerance consists of "living with differences that we don't agree with"?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Exactly, that's what I thought you meant by tolerance. What I was saying is that if people want to change their own personal sexual orientations instead of their religious beliefs, wouldn't it be "tolerant" for a psychologist they're seeing to put all the options on the table for such a person and let him choose between them, as opposed to only recommending groups that will try to help change the person's religious outlook?

That's what I was talking about.

And wouldn't it be more "tolerant" for those who find homosexuality an acceptable form of behavior to be accepting of people's decision if they want to change to heterosexual? Since tolerance consists of "living with differences that we don't agree with"?

I'm saying that the person who is homosexual shouldn't feel as if he or she has to change at all. Their orientation isn't the problem. The problem is other people who give them stress over it.

You'd be better off teaching that homosexual person how to better deal with people who have unwarranted prejudices towards them.

Do you think it would be right to suggest to a christian in a muslim majority nation that it might be a good idea to consider becoming muslim? Or would it be better to teach them ways to deal with the prejudices they will face?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Do you think it would be right to suggest to a christian in a muslim majority nation that it might be a good idea to consider becoming muslim? Or would it be better to teach them ways to deal with the prejudices they will face?

Well, I personally have an attitude and a number of beliefs that are often socially seen as "intolerant," nowadays, so based on those, I would of course only support the Christian's Christianity and would try to prevent any conversion to Islam. You and I have different ideological frameworks from which we're working, though.

If I came at it with your assumptions about reality rather than mine, I would give the wavering Christian the phone numbers of Muslim support groups as well as those of Christian support groups. This is partly because not all Christians could be seen as wavering because of external pressures alone- he or she might have a genuine interest in becoming a Muslim. If the person is sincerely interested in Islam because of really thinking it might be true, and you only give the person information about how to remain a Christian, wouldn't that be "intolerant" of you?

Also, let's just consider for a moment if the person really is being pressured by other Muslims to become a Muslim. If the person is under such pressure, who are you to make the decision for her that sticking to those beliefs is worth it? Would you really only give the information to the person about how to stay Christian if the person or her family is at risk? Shouldn't that be the individual's decision to make?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You'd be better off teaching that homosexual person how to better deal with people who have unwarranted prejudices towards them.

This wouldn't help, with many believers. With some, this would help the person to become at peace with his decision (from your POV). On the other hand, if I suddenly started having homosexual thoughts, this would be the most useless thing you could do for me.

A few years ago, I opened a fantasy book and skimmed through it to a very, very vivid rape scene, and I read it all very eagerly. I was fully aware that what I was doing was sinful, but I did it anyway. For months afterward, I struggled with very intense lewd and sexual thoughts. I prayed instantly afterward for forgiveness, but I had committed willful sin and had known that I should be stopping even as I pressed on. Victory over willful sin is not always easy. I battled against those thoughts in Jesus' name and power, after that, but it was only after many months of very psychologically painful fighting that the battle was won and those thoughts stopped emerging.

Many, many people would react to those thoughts the same way I did. If you had just taught me at that time how to deal with people that had a problem with those thoughts, it would not have been any help. As you probably know, it wouldn't be easy to convert me into a relativist. More helpful for my psychological ease of mind would have been to advise me in how to dump those thoughts and then help me to do so.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The problem is other people who give them stress over it.

Another "problem" you need to look at is the belief systems of the people you're talking to. The fact that martyrs have existed in history proves that people are able to stand up in their beliefs against the will of a more powerful society. That shows how strongly people can hold their beliefs themselves, how resistant to external pressures they can be.

So you have to look also to the "problem" people have when they have the wrong ideology and put that ideology above their sexual orientation.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

NURV!

Yes, data is data. No data is no data. Allegation is allegation.

In view of the latter, "I've met a number of really awesome Persians, and it must suck for them that they have such a lousy government. Ditto for Americans, though at least they are as bad."

Clarify: they are as ignorant? they are as awesome? they are as bad(=wicked=good)? Or, was this some sort of Canadianism? Canuckism?

Who is as ignorant/awesome/bad as whom? Bloggers vs. real news sources you mean?

Anybody can be a blogger and they are not held to any level of accountability except that of their readers. Newspapers must at least meet some sort of journalism ethics and intergrity, as well as be accountable to their readers, so they are more reliable. (How reliable exactly depends on the newspaper/magazine itself. Eg. Econimist = yes, The Province = not very)

Lief: While there may be the outward evidence that someone has successfully changed his or her sexual orientation, it is extremely hard to tell if they really did change their orientation. How can you know for sure? There are so many external factors in a program designed to change one's orientation that you can't really know if they're simply beaten down or sick of the program or just want to make their family/psychologist/themselves/whoever happy.

Either way, as long as that person is happy than it doesn't matter to me what their sexual orientation is.

But it seems that the argument that would follow "one can change one's sexual orientation," is "one should change one's sexual orientation," and you simply cannot make such a leap.

(Just in case you were going to go there.)

[GrayMouser]

Lief, I'd like to see those studies cited by the APA. On their own website FAQ on homosexuality, they say this:

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy will take place in a professionally neutral environment, without any social bias.

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html
Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality

[inked]

NURV, the poster was made by the regional government advocating a pseudoscientific rationale for opinion. Does it really matter that the poster was on a blog instead of a newspaper when the local government is putting it up in public venues?

Sheesh!