'Going Straight'

[LeopardSkinQueen]

Someone posted this to STATalk, as they couldn't get it posted here unregistered, and I posted it in my own livejournal. As no one on STATalk seemed to be in the mood to discuss this issue, I thought I would put it here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story ... 96,00.html

What is everyone's opinions on this? Do you agree that homosexuality is 'curable'? Or do you think that the program will damage people in the long term?

I'll post my opinions later, after people have had a chance to read without me biasing in any way. I'm sure a lot of you can guess what I think, however.

[hr][s]Log Lady: I heard you speaking about Laura Palmer?
Dale Cooper: Yes?
Log Lady: One day my log will have something to say about this. My log saw something that night.
Dale Cooper: Really. What did it see?
Log Lady: Ask it.
[Cooper hesitates]
Log Lady: I thought so. (walks away)
[/s]

[mackie]

I don't think Homosexuality can be cured - afterall it isn't a disease and people don't choose to be gay or straight. I believe that people should be allowed to be what they feel they are - afterall, I've always said that you are neither gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual - you are a person who loves whoever you love, whether that be a male or female.

The words above are just words and labels - why can't people choose who they want to be with? It's funny that people are ridiculed by others because one year they are with a woman, next they are with man. Does that make them bi? No, it makes them a person who happens to be attracted to both sexes. Of course they call themselves bi because they have to be called something I suppose. But sexual orientation cannot be cured or chosen.

[Sleigh]

Sounds like more rubbish from the religious right in America. He seems to be saying that men turn gay by rejecting their father because he is, "cold or hostile." Not knowing any gay men particularly well I can't speak for them but I've some friends whose fathers could be described as such and aren't gay.

It was interesting on the post about this on statalk saying that this topic had already been posted here and had been deleted. Is this true, and if so, why?

[Plette]

I found that article deeply disturbing, to think that some people are so ashamed of the way they are naturally that they feel driven to "cure" themselves. It's one thing when someone has a hard time gaining acceptance from others, and it must be a million times harder when you cannot even accept yourself.

I suppose that in all fairness, if people want to change then it should be their option to try...but I wonder whether they want to change because of themselves, or because they feel that they'll fit in with society and be more accepted and normal if they do.

I was quite disgusted by the idea of family members trucking their teenage son or daughter off to these seminars as if they were some sort of leper needing to be cured.

[hr]Sola lingua bona est lingua morta.

[Plette]

[s]Sleigh wrote on 14:48, 7th Apr 2004:
It was interesting on the post about this on statalk saying that this topic had already been posted here and had been deleted. Is this true, and if so, why?


Yes, and why would it not have gotten through as an unregistered post, as Kim said? It's not offensive or anything so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't have been posted.

[hr]
Sola lingua bona est lingua morta.

[grousefanatic]

Kinda interesting, that article, I'd heard of something similar before. I think that my favourite part of the article was when the original group trying to "realign sexuality" were proud to announce that (I can't cut stuff so if i paraphrase, please don't cyberslaughter me) "up to a third of their patients could be cured". To me, that suggests that a minimum of 2/3 of people who went (or were dragged) to see them were not realigned. Smacks of "But I'm a Cheerleader" and an episode of Will & Grace (yes I know some people hate the show, but I like it and the epsiode I'm thinking of actually made a relevant point).It's a bit sad to see that people still try to do this, but there is a market as it were for people who don't want to accept it.

It isn't one of the easiest things to come to terms with, I can tell you, and there are those who wish it weren't true. Admittedly, many young people nowadays find it easier to cope with, but those from more traditional backgrounds and older people still feel a lot of stigma attached to such a lifestyle.

Once it's accepted that being a homosexual is not a lifestyle choice just to be trendy and different, but rather just a part of life, then these sorts of ideas might begin to fade. I just don't know how long it'll take.

People may disagree with me, but, hey, the intention of this thread was for a free and frank discussion, so no calling people fascist and evil for having their opinions

[paloma]

My favorite part has to be:

'Gay couples have more group sex, more failed relationships. Gay couplings are characteristically brief and very volatile, with much fighting, arguing, making up again, and continual disappointments. We owe it to young people to tell them that, if they go in that direction, these are the things they will encounter. More drug abuse. More unhappiness. And we aren't even talking about Aids. How much is all this about society's homophobia? Yes, a little bit. But nothing like as much as it is about the pathology of homosexuality.'

Geez, why not just generalize about brunettes next. It seems that as scientific research, the theory doesn't really hold water. It is too bad that this man has gone out of his way to pretend it has (taking 18 months to find just 200 people to say they have changed).

I honestly believe that everyone goes through different phases of attraction for opposite-sex and same-sex persons in their lives, for some these feelings are stronger, and only some choose to act on them. There is a continuum of attraction, as there is a continuum of masculinity to femininity (and vice versa). is as black and white as they try to make it seem, and labels, quite frankly, don't help at all.

[grousefanatic]

[s]paloma wrote on 15:06, 7th Apr 2004:
My favorite part has to be:

'Gay couples have more group sex, more failed relationships. Gay couplings are characteristically brief and very volatile, with much fighting, arguing, making up again, and continual disappointments. We owe it to young people to tell them that, if they go in that direction, these are the things they will encounter. More drug abuse. More unhappiness. And we aren't even talking about Aids. How much is all this about society's homophobia? Yes, a little bit. But nothing like as much as it is about the pathology of homosexuality.'



That's fantastic LOL, take out the references to homosexuality, and it sounds just like an episode of Coronation Street or Eastenders!

[hr]
veni vidi nates calce concidi - i came, i saw, i kicked ass

[Prophet Tenebrae]

These kind of ideas have been around for quite a while and as far as I can tell remain equally foolish.

And I'd agree with the soap analogy - but then what do you expect from the Guardian, I'm sure the average Guardian reader was lapping up that article.

[grousefanatic]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 16:07, 7th Apr 2004:
These kind of ideas have been around for quite a while and as far as I can tell remain equally foolish.

And I'd agree with the soap analogy - but then what do you expect from the Guardian, I'm sure the average Guardian reader was lapping up that article.


Oddly enough, the Daily Mail only had a small tiny article on the same thing.

[hr]
veni vidi nates calce concidi - i came, i saw, i kicked ass

[hmmm]

Is there scientific evidence to back up or at least suggest the idea of homosexuality being a disorder, or indeed to back up or suggest that it is not a disorder? I'm only asking as I genuinely don't know much about how scientists look at homosexuality compared to heterosexuality - I only know about the social differences.

Did anyone else see the channel 4 program "Secret Intersex" about people who are both male and female? It was extremely interesting and perhaps goes someway to suggesting that whoever the great creator is perhaps he didn't intend the divide between men and women to be as large as it is.

And I don't mean to sound ignorant or anything, so sorry if I do - I just don't know how people in the field of science view this issue without religious reasons figured into the equation.

[curious]

Is there anyone who agrees with the article? I find it hard to believe that there aren't any although perhaps no one wants to say? Otherwise this will be a little one sided!!

[yawn]

Why blame the papers? It's not like they are making it up - they're reporting, something people rather like papers to do as opposed to just making up drivel about celebrities or politicians. I hate the way people always like to show off by slagging of certain papers for whatever reasons, it's a little sad.

Obviously people are interested enough to merit the article in the first place, and just becasue it is not something that everyone agrees with doesn't mean it should be hushed up. If that was the case we would get no news what so ever.

After all, who is to say that they aren't right? Where is the evidence either way? Or shall we just shout at them for being stupid without giving any reasons. Reasons and facts are needed either way, otherwise it just descends into a repetitive conflict of personal opinions.

[Al]

Whatever the reasons or causes of homosexuality, gay people have the right to be treated as any other normal member of society, and not as source material for some bizarre experiments by wannabe social engineers. Besides, if it were really possible to readjust people, there are so many better types of person on whom to experiment. Conservative voters, for example. The world would be a whole lot better off without them.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[grousefanatic]

[s]Al wrote on 16:24, 7th Apr 2004:
Conservative voters, for example. The world would be a whole lot better off without them.


Trying not to turn this into a political debate thing, but it really does depend on where you are (kind of bug bear for me, this). My local MPs (at home anyway) are conservative and believe me, they are the lesser of many evils!

Edited as I forgot that I was at home, don't think Mr Campbell would like to be seen as conservative lol

[hr]
veni vidi nates calce concidi - i came, i saw, i kicked ass

[Biitchboy]

You should all watch the film "But I'm A Cheerleader". It's a comedy about one of these conversion camps.

And I think they're complete bull shit. Other than being completely wrong and flawed in all their beliefs, biases and assumptions, which they pass off as facts, they are highly damaging to the people who go through the process. The fact that they feel the need to go there in the first place is the saddest part.

[hr]If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~lgbtsoc
*This post does not necessarily reflect the views of the society*

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]grousefanatic wrote on 16:27, 7th Apr 2004:
[s]Al wrote on 16:24, 7th Apr 2004:[i]
Conservative voters, for example. The world would be a whole lot better off without them.


Trying not to turn this into a political debate thing, but it really does depend on where you are (kind of bug bear for me, this). My local MPs (at home anyway) are conservative and believe me, they are the lesser of many evils!
[/i]
The Tories are never the lesser of any evils. Unless you're talking about the BNP that is, and even then it's close.

[exnihilo]

No. It's not. Behave. And don't cheapen the issues posed by the BNP with feeble humour. And, no, I'm not a Tory.


[hr]The world is full of stupid people. I say we get rid of all the warning labels and let the problem take care of itself.

[Cain]

I remember a two page spread in the daily mail in my second year on "how women are turning men gay."

i can't actually remember what the main point of the article was, but it involved the social role of women and how they stunted men's emotional growth, making them more childlike, and therefore gay.

of course.

[hr]I will diminish, and go into fourth year, and remain Cain

[Manic23]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 18:39, 7th Apr 2004:
No. It's not. Behave. And don't cheapen the issues posed by the BNP with feeble humour. And, no, I'm not a Tory.


[hr][i]The world is full of stupid people. I say we get rid of all the warning labels and let the problem take care of itself.
[/i]



The PC Squad strikes again...