If there was credible evidence for a method for converting homosexuals...

[CriticalThought]

Would you support it?

Personally, I believe in "best practice" which means following what the best evidence at the time suggests.

My primary opposition to practices that attempt to convert gays into heterosexuals is the lack of evidence of a safe methodology that does so. As such, I currently support legislation which seeks to limit this practice among licensed professionals.

However, if there were ever a medical or therapeutic method developed that was supported by evidence to be effective and safe, then I would not oppose anyone's right to pursue a conversion from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation or any professional's right to provide it.

I see the Ex-Gay movement's issue being a lack of credible scientific evidence to support their political agenda. If they could independently demonstrate a methodology for conversions then I think they would have a strong case. As it is now, they provide mostly anecdotal evidence, which is often dismissed when those same people eventually come forward arguing that they were not really converted. A lot of the evidence they introduce from the 70s and 80s on conversions has been debunked because there was never a folllow up and the follow ups that have been done have shown considerable exaggeration. A "cure" was often defined as simply abstaining from sexual behavior altogether.

Even if a conversion methodology were developed, I personally would have no interest in it. I am happy with my life and the relationship I have with my partner. However, I recognize that due to religious and societal pressures, some people have strong feelings about what constitutes appropriate sexual behavior and that creates distress when it comes into conflict with their sexual orientation. If they desired a heterosexual orientation, then who would I be to stand in their way?

 

[SBu]

Would you support it?

Personally, I believe in "best practice" which means following what the best evidence at the time suggests.

My primary opposition to practices that attempt to convert gays into heterosexuals is the lack of evidence of a safe methodology that does so. As such, I currently support legislation which seeks to limit this practice among licensed professionals.

However, if there were ever a medical or therapeutic method developed that was supported by evidence to be effective and safe, then I would not oppose anyone's right to pursue a conversion from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation or any professional's right to provide it.

I see the Ex-Gay movement's issue being a lack of credible scientific evidence to support their political agenda. If they could independently demonstrate a methodology for conversions then I think they would have a strong case. As it is now, they provide mostly anecdotal evidence, which is often dismissed when those same people eventually come forward arguing that they were not really converted. A lot of the evidence they introduce from the 70s and 80s on conversions has been debunked because there was never a folllow up and the follow ups that have been done have shown considerable exaggeration. A "cure" was often defined as simply abstaining from sexual behavior altogether.

Even if a conversion methodology were developed, I personally would have no interest in it. I am happy with my life and the relationship I have with my partner. However, I recognize that due to religious and societal pressures, some people have strong feelings about what constitutes appropriate sexual behavior and that creates distress when it comes into conflict with their sexual orientation. If they desired a heterosexual orientation, then who would I be to stand in their way?

I don't think I would support it or deny it. I think that the current "conversion" tactics which usually promote self denigrating "therapies" is inhumane and extreme examples should be unlawful. However, if a gay person wanted to undergo this "treatment" or a safer/more productive alternative like you suggest, who are we to push it or deny it so long as it is safe?

 

[Fisher]

It would be up to the individuals involved, but given the number of people allegedly in the closet I would imagine that the number who would opt for it would be much higher than the "family" would be willing to admit.

 

[chromium]

I have a hard time imagining how this wouldn't result in some drastic "side effects," the brain being what it is, but it would be the individual's choice. If such a thing were possible, there would always be some who get it done, whether it's legal or not. The reason current "conversion therapy" needs to be banned is it completely fails. It can only be harmful.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

If a credible method become available, then it should be legal for adults. Those adults should also be required to go through a predetermined amount of therapy before they qualify to go through the conversion process. Ultimately, I would support a system similar to the system for transsexuals.

Side note: If such a credible method to change sexuality becomes available, I hope it is developed or discovered long after society has rid itself of the bigoted delusions it has about orientations other than heterosexuality. I would hate for people to change their sexuality just in order to appease bigots and fools. Also, I wouldn't "support" the method. I would just accept the right of people to go through the process if they want to.

 

[cpwill]

:shrug: yes. I suppose that's sort of a "duh" from my position . I think that would save lots of people lots of emotional pain, for starters.

 

[chromium]

If a credible method become available, then it should be legal for adults. Those adults should also be required to go through a predetermined amount of therapy before they qualify to go through the conversion process. Ultimately, I would support a system similar to the system for transsexuals.

Side note: If such a credible method to change sexuality becomes available, I hope it is developed or discovered long after society has rid itself of the bigoted delusions it has about orientations other than heterosexuality. I would hate for people to change their sexuality just in order to appease bigots and fools. Also, I wouldn't "support" the method. I would just accept the right of people to go through the process if they want to.

This is well put, but i wonder why would they bother going thru it after bigotry is dead? It's clear to me that some just can't stand being "different," but in more accepting environments like college towns, i have heard more complaints from heterosexuals that they just can't get along with the opposite sex.

 

[Gipper]

Could it go both ways? If so, I wouldn't mind being gay. Men can screw all month without 4-6 day "maintenance", not worry about the toilet seat, not be subjected to PMS, always be rational, know not to lag when the game is on...

I could go on, but I think you know where I'm going with this.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Would you support it?

Personally, I believe in "best practice" which means following what the best evidence at the time suggests.

My primary opposition to practices that attempt to convert gays into heterosexuals is the lack of evidence of a safe methodology that does so. As such, I currently support legislation which seeks to limit this practice among licensed professionals.

However, if there were ever a medical or therapeutic method developed that was supported by evidence to be effective and safe, then I would not oppose anyone's right to pursue a conversion from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation or any professional's right to provide it.

I see the Ex-Gay movement's issue being a lack of credible scientific evidence to support their political agenda. If they could independently demonstrate a methodology for conversions then I think they would have a strong case. As it is now, they provide mostly anecdotal evidence, which is often dismissed when those same people eventually come forward arguing that they were not really converted. A lot of the evidence they introduce from the 70s and 80s on conversions has been debunked because there was never a folllow up and the follow ups that have been done have shown considerable exaggeration. A "cure" was often defined as simply abstaining from sexual behavior altogether.

Even if a conversion methodology were developed, I personally would have no interest in it. I am happy with my life and the relationship I have with my partner. However, I recognize that due to religious and societal pressures, some people have strong feelings about what constitutes appropriate sexual behavior and that creates distress when it comes into conflict with their sexual orientation. If they desired a heterosexual orientation, then who would I be to stand in their way?

Hell, I don't care about the idea of people trying conversion therapy now, even though none of it is shown to work. The only reason I oppose its availability as it currently exists is because it's often abusive and causes adverse psychological reactions. If that factor were removed, I wouldn't care.

I think the best course of action is to learn to be ok with yourself. But I am not going to try to enforce that on other people, and there may be some people whose degree of social pressure and stress is too great for them to ever make peace with it. There may even be people for whom it's a purely practical matter. They can decide how they want to handle it.

None the less, forcing your kid into it should not be legal. It should be a decision the gay person makes themselves.

 

[CriticalThought]

Could it go both ways? If so, I wouldn't mind being gay. Men can screw all month without 4-6 day "maintenance", not worry about the toilet seat, not be subjected to PMS, always be rational, know not to lag when the game is on...

I could go on, but I think you know where I'm going with this.

My boyfriend would disagree with some of those statements.

 

[specklebang]

Would you support it? ?

Only if there were a conversion therapy to convert heterosexuals to homosexuals.

Why?

1) Population control. We're drowning in humans and we can only issue so many EBT cards before we become overwhelmed. Same-sex couples rarely produce children.

2) Species logic - Men are from Mars, Women from Venus. Right? It's unnatural for them tro be spending so much time in each other company.

3) Fairness - goose/gander, apple/orange/innie/outie. You know what I mean.

 

[Deuce]

Man if there were a way to convert to The Gay Agenda, I'd take it in a heartbeat. In good shape, good sense of fashion, clean, get laid at the drop of a hat. Sounds awesome.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

In good shape, good sense of fashion, clean, get laid at the drop of a hat. Sounds awesome.

You know, if a straight man is in good shape, dresses well, and keeps clean... chances are, he gets laid at the drop of a hat, too. By women.

 

[chromium]

You know, if a straight man is in good shape, dresses well, and keeps clean... chances are, he gets laid at the drop of a hat, too. By women.

odds of this happening....

 

[Dezaad]

Could it go both ways? If so, I wouldn't mind being gay. Men can screw all month without 4-6 day "maintenance", not worry about the toilet seat, not be subjected to PMS, always be rational, know not to lag when the game is on...

I could go on, but I think you know where I'm going with this.

I would only support it only if it were legal to choose to go either way.

 

[Paschendale]

If someone genuinely wanted to change themselves, then sure. But such a desire would almost invariably come from religious and societal pressures. How often does a person truly desire to change something about themselves without outside pressure? A chocolate lover doesn't wake up one day wanting to change to preferring vanilla. A country fan doesn't wish they loved metal. People are what they are. We should stop deciding that some kinds of people are defective.

 

[CLAX1911]

It would be up to the individuals involved, but given the number of people allegedly in the closet I would imagine that the number who would opt for it would be much higher than the "family" would be willing to admit.

I actually agree completely with you. I believe many people would be interested. It would likely be younger folks maybe even single folks. It's hard to be gay and there were times I would have rather died than be gay. I know I am not the only person that felt that way.

So yes I imagine there would be a lot of people that would take such a treatment.

 

[CLAX1911]

:shrug: yes. I suppose that's sort of a "duh" from my position . I think that would save lots of people lots of emotional pain, for starters.

The emotional pain would go away if we simply learned to love each other :shrug:

I think that would be easier than creating such a conversion therapy. Acceptance is love and love is acceptance.

We are a wretched race we would rather treat people like broken toys than just love them.

 

[VanceMack]

There already is a credible safe way for people to not live as homosexuals...many people with homosexual ideation for whatever reason choose simply to not act on it. That doesnt mean they dont have an attraction to relationships with people of the same sex, nor does it mean that the partnered aspect and drive vanishes. It means they choose to NOT have relationships with people of the same sex. They dont obsess about it or pine about it or long for it. They simply choose, for whatever reason, to live a heterosexual lifestyle. Happily. This also may come as a shock but there are more than a few (and more women than men) that choose to live as a coupled relationship because they have simply given up on or do not trust male/female relationships but still desire love, belonging, and physical contact.

"Converting" homosexuals? I doubt there is any such thing. But people willfully choose to not act on their 'natural' sexual orientation and related desires all the time. Pasch said it best. The individual has to have a real desire to change. Not their parents desire, not society's desire, but they...for themselves, have to want and to and be willing to NOT act on their natural orientation.

 

[CLAX1911]

There already is a credible safe way for people to not live as homosexuals...many people with homosexual ideation for whatever reason choose simply to not act on it. That doesnt mean they dont have an attraction to relationships with people of the same sex, nor does it mean that the partnered aspect and drive vanishes. It means they choose to NOT have relationships with people of the same sex. They dont obsess about it or pine about it or long for it. They simply choose, for whatever reason, to live a heterosexual lifestyle. Happily. This also may come as a shock but there are more than a few (and more women than men) that choose to live as a coupled relationship because they have simply given up on or do not trust male/female relationships but still desire love, belonging, and physical contact.

"Converting" homosexuals? I doubt there is any such thing. But people willfully choose to not act on their 'natural' sexual orientation and related desires all the time. Pasch said it best. The individual has to have a real desire to change. Not their parents desire, not society's desire, but they...for themselves, have to want and to and be willing to NOT act on their natural orientation.

You are homosexual because of who you are attracted to, not because of who you have sex with. Otherwise we would all be asexual until we broke our virginity.

To exist as a homosexual even a celibate one is to act on homosexuality. Because being attracted is an action.

Sexual orientation is what sex you are oriented toward, not what sex you have intercourse with. Simply being celibate doesn't make a homosexual not homosexual any more than not having sex with the opposite sex would make a heterosexual not heterosexual any more.

 

[VanceMack]

You are homosexual because of who you are attracted to, not because of who you have sex with. Otherwise we would all be asexual until we broke our virginity.

To exist as a homosexual even a celibate one is to act on homosexuality. Because being attracted is an action.

Sexual orientation is what sex you are oriented toward, not what sex you have intercourse with. Simply being celibate doesn't make a homosexual not homosexual any more than not having sex with the opposite sex would make a heterosexual not heterosexual any more.

Surely you CANT have missed the numerous times I pointed out not only the sexual but partnered aspect. There are MANY that have homosexual tendencies but choose to not act on them> there are many people with heterosexual orientation but still choose to engage in homosexual relationships. But I disagree completely with your notion that 'attraction' equals 'action'. There are MILLIONS of people that choose daily to not 'act' on attraction, be it homosexual, heterosexual, or any manner of deviant behavior. Attraction is natural...action...well...that takes effort.

 

[CLAX1911]

Surely you CANT have missed the numerous times I pointed out not only the sexual but partnered aspect. There are MANY that have homosexual tendencies but choose to not act on them> there are many people with heterosexual orientation but still choose to engage in homosexual relationships. But I disagree completely with your notion that 'attraction' equals 'action'. There are MILLIONS of people that choose daily to not 'act' on attraction, be it homosexual, heterosexual, or any manner of deviant behavior. Attraction is natural...action...well...that takes effort.

To be attracted is an action

at·trac·tion
əˈtrakSHən/
1.
the action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something.

Merriam-Webster Search for iPhone

If you don't believe it's an action to be attracted to somebody you reject the meaning of the word action. If you want to invent your own meaning for English words than that is your business.

If it isn't an action to feel attraction, what is it? Please provide dictionary support our really anything.

Being attracted to the same sex is a homosexual act. It may not be the act of sexual intercourse, but it is an act.

 

[VanceMack]

To be attracted is an action

at·trac·tion
əˈtrakSHən/
1.
the action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something.

Merriam-Webster Search for iPhone

If you don't believe it's an action to be attracted to somebody you reject the meaning of the word action. If you want to invent your own meaning for English words than that is your business.

If it isn't an action to feel attraction, what is it? Please provide dictionary support our really anything.

Being attracted to the same sex is a homosexual act. It may not be the act of sexual intercourse, but it is an act.

Your own definition provided another word...OR POWER. Is the "fun with semantics" game one you LIKE to play often?

 

[CLAX1911]

Your own definition provided another word...OR POWER. Is the "fun with semantics" game one you LIKE to play often?

It isn't semantics the to be attracted to someone Pee something is an act.

I would love to hear what it is if it is not an act.

pow·er
ˈpou(-ə)r/
noun
1.
the ability to do something or act in a particular way, esp. as a faculty or quality.

 

[VanceMack]

It isn't semantics the to be attracted to someone Pee something is an act.

I would love to hear what it is if it is not an act.

pow·er
ˈpou(-ə)r/
noun
1.
the ability to do something or act in a particular way, esp. as a faculty or quality.

The ABILITY to do or act. Ability. Now...have fun with that. And ohbytheway...don't know if that was Freudian on your behalf but yes...weirdly...some have the 'attraction' to pee as well. But we won't hate.