Gay Marriage

NO!

A person can be treated for "disturbance" or "adjustment problems" with sexuality. A person CANNOT be treated for "homosexual."

 

Exactly, if persons wanted to argue for a real "Defense of Marriage," they would argue to end 'Full Faith and Credit' for Nevada Quickie Divorces, a real threat that currently exists, and not same-sex marriage, which is only a theoretical, future threat.

 

How come you didn't quote and respond to any of my posts photogra1?

 

whatever you all can go ahead and think what u want, but people being gay is just people letting thier bodies tell them what to do, and are not thinking in a rational matter. If you are one of those who think they are actually truly 100% gay then you either had a strange upbringing, or you have never had a good heterosexual relationship. I can understand being bi because that is part of being kinky for some i suppose, but 100% homosexuality is nothing more than a confused individual

 

Why is "letting their bodies tell them what to do" irrational? Surely it would be more "confused" of an individual to deny those urges that make them who they are.

I'm intrigued that you think bisexuality is ok on the grounds of being kinky, but not full-time homoism. I mean, by the same reasoning, homosexuality is just an extreme of bisexuality.

 

The Kinsey report proved that homosexuality was not abnormal, so there was no reason to think of it as a dysfunction. End of.

 

This is just plain funny. All you've proved is that common sense differs from one person to another, and thus can't be the sole foundation for an argument.

 

Who in the hell thinks Kinsey gets to 'End It' and 'thats that'

Kinsey was a fucking wacko and his reports are not only constantly discredited by .. well ANYONE really.. but Kinsey's methods (i.e. Pedophiles 'researching' Child Sexuality) had resulted in calls for criminal investigation.

Oh.. I forgot.. theres a movie in which he is depicted as heroic by screenwriters and actors.

You dont TELL anyone what is the 'END OF DISCUSSION' .. thats why these are FREE SPEECH and FREE THOUGHT Forums.

Dig?

 

Dug. Although many others have offered very definitive statements which passed without comment. Get a sense of humour.

Whatever you think of Kinsey's personal life, his methods were only cause for criminal investigation because J Edgar Hoover felt threatened by them, and because America has been obsessed with its own perceived moral hygeine since the Second World War.

 

Says You.

I dont know how successful these treatments are - but people most definately DO seek treatment for 'Homosexuality' and receive that treatment from Psychiatric Professionals IF they so choose.

Just because YOU demand everyone believe its 'Normal' doesnt mean the next 'Homosexual' does.

You dont have the right to tell him what he can and can not decide is disturbing him and whether he should decide to cure it with.

 

What are you basing this on? I know a helluva lot of homosexuals, and I only know one who's ever attempted to "cure" himself. He went to a Bible camp for queers, discovered it was a 24hour fuckfest and never looked back.

Seriously, I'd be interested to see a statistic. Roughly what percentage of homosexuals seek psychiatric help?

 

I dont think we can ever know how many people are seeking treatment (although some debate about people being denied treatment for political reasons)

Keep in mind - The same ones who are going to be concerned enough to get themselves help - are probably not the same ones interested in telling anyone about it.

Anyway.. Since I cant answer your question, here are some references which might do so:

Since the advent of psychology, the medical community has consistently reported successful treatment of this problem. Listed here are six of the top doctors who, as part of their psychological or psychiatric practices, have treated homosexuals and written books about changing homosexuality:

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996),
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (1991),
Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg, On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Reinterpretation (1986),
Dr. Irving Bieber, et. al., Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals (1988),
Dr. Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion (1977)
Dr. Lawrence Hatterer, Changing Homosexuality in the Male: Treatment for Men Troubled by Homosexuality (1970). In 1992 the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), (16442 Ventura Blvd. #416, Encino, CA 91436), was formed. This group exists to advance the field of treatment for homosexuality.

Hope that helps.

Im not a big fan of psychologists or psychiatrists myself, but Im always open to anyone with a valid point, regardless of their profession.

 

I learned in psychology that most of the attempts in the 30s to "cure" homosexuality didn't work. They basically involved aversion therapy; it's similar to the "Clockwork Orange" thing, but they used electric shocks to attempt to create an association in the mind of the homosexual between pain and homosexual impulses. That worked.

However, rather than having the effect of rendering them heterosexual, it just meant that they developed a taste for masochism as well, having learned to associate pain with sex.

If a person were divisible from their sexuality, I would have thought you'd see it evidenced in these tests.

 

The same was said about the American cure for 'Morally Unsanitary' disease of Masterbation being cured by amputating the boys foreskin.

Oh it 'worked' alright. The boy would NEVER be caught masterbating again.

Later, many of these boys would be thought to become 'Masochistic' and enjoy sex the most when the woman was 'being banged hard' or 'fucked till she begged me to stop' etc.
Some psychiatrists believed this was a sort of 'Revenge' against females.

But re: Curing Homosexuality in modern times... Im pretty darn sure its not dont this way anymore. (?!)

Its more likely that they go for the usual methods of finding the 'Absent' Father, the Dominant Mother figure and possibly the incident in which an older Homosexual molested them.

Then its probably a method of 'Self Inquiry' and techniques to confront the real issue instead of finding ways to escape it.

I dont actually know this - but it seems like that is the standard therapy of these days.

In the case of Homosexuals who were molested as children/teens - I suspect there would be some slightly different methods than, say, the Homosexuals who are looking for 'Love from a Father Figure/ Resent their Mothers"

For the guys who are doing it for sexual gratification (plain and simple) you cant really call that a 'Psychological Issue'.

I mean - They go to the park because they love the feeling of a 'BJ'.
Its not like there is some 'Issue' that needs to be 'Found out'.
Its just something they do because they like it.
There is nothing 'behind it'.

 

Just for clarity, the word 'consistent' shouldn't really be used in conjunction with these references neither the word 'successful' based upon these works. Biased perhaps.

As far as the 'treatment' of homosexuality. Reparative/conversion therapy has generally been found to cause more harm than good.

These other methods of treatment are not specific to 'homosexuality' but, like Brocktoon points out, relative to other issues.

The idea of sex simply for gratification is something heteros do everyday. So I'm glad the similarity is recognized.

 

I have to say, this doesn't surprise me at all. But it is pertinent to the debate: masturbation was regarded as unsanitary and a treatable disorder. The psychs attempt to treat it with aversion therapy, and end up damaging the subject more psychologically. When that happens, they blame the subject. Nowadays, most psychiatrists would agree that there's nothing at all unhealthy about masurbation, that it's completely normal, or at the very least preferable to turning the subject into more of a sexual deviant in an attempt to combat it.

And a small pedantic point: sadism is pleasure in inflicting pain. Masochism is pleasure in receiving it.

You're addressing some interesting issues here. Yes, I know what you mean about the molestation thing: a lot of kids who are molested do develop homosexual tendencies, either from just being subjected to sexuality at too early an age or from having a bad experience which leads them to dislike themself or women or whoever. However, a huge number of homosexuals do not come from this background, and it is not representatitve of a typical homosexual psyche.

Similarly with the "Absent Father" scenario; it is a common factor, but then, it's a common factor of many household these days. I think it's possible that the absence of a the father would have some effect, but largely because of the relationship between children and their parents: the father is meant to be more authoritative[sp?]. So, if the father is present, someone with homosexual tendencies may be more likely to surpress them, whereas in the absence of that authority figure, they may feel less constricted in expressing them.

I can honestly say, neither of these scenarios apply to me. My home life has been fairly stable as long as I remember, and I've never unloved beyond what is normal for a kid/teen. So while I respect your opinion on this, I think it might be worth checking with some bona fide homosexuals, since if anyone's going to know the answers, it's probably them.

Oh, one more thing: do you have any problem with lesbians? All your references that I've seen so far refer to men rather than women or men and women. I'm just curious as to whether you regard them as the same thing.

 

valid point. I've been debating over this as a hetero male. I'm quite comfortable with who I am and have no problem with anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation. Why would I? The idea, to me, is simply ludicrous. From the standpoint of a hetero male though I'll say that sometimes I'm privy to the 'hush-hush' conversations about gays that sometimes take place. I often hear phrases like "I'm ok with gays but they better not hit on me" or " I don't care as long as they don't kiss or hold hands in front of me".... or even" yeah, two chicks, oh yeah, I'd love to see that"...

I usually laugh because their making the assumption that just because their a man that means that automaticly all gay men will find them attractive and hit on em'. lol For me it's no different than a woman hitting on me that I'm not attracted to, try to be cool about it and just let it be known I'm not interested. The other is just ridiculous. Hetero people make out in public all the time and sometimes it's just gross, shlurping and slobbering all over each other (just my take), and the whole lesbian phenomonae with men. I think it's funny . I have to admit though that given a choice, I probably wouldn't want to be in the same room with two men having sex. Why would I? As far as lesbians go, they probably wouldn't want me there anyway, or for that matter neither might the guys. I've dated a couple of bi-sexual ladies, as well as been involved a couple of threesomes, big deal. It was the natural flow of events. As it stands my dating at present is with completely hetero women, not because I'm discriminating now against bi women, that's just who I'm dating. Then there's the whole thing about gays who try to 'convert' straights. I've known a couple. In my book though, their methods weren't very different from any other sexual predators which exist all over the spectrum.

I just don't understand all the fears from certain members of the hetero community. Why be so worried about how others have sex, or come to know intimacy, or emotional bonding, or even falling in love and getting married. It always seems to fall back on some conservative religious view point or simply being uncomfortable in their own skin, haven't quite gotten past the development where everyone else is an extension of them.

Sorry for the long post over that but I think I'll kindly bow out of this debate It's apparent that there are gay posters who are very knowledgable about the issue(more than myself, I'm sure) as well as being able to convey ideals from a much more personal level than I could.

add: I use the phrase 'gay' because most of my friends that are homosexual refer to themselves as gay. I've never really known though if when adressing strangers if that's ok, or if it would be taken at offense. ah, probly doesn't matter but just one of those things I wondered about.

 

I've never met an attractive homophobe. I might be way out of line here, but I think the uglier you are, the less likely you are to understand how a man could possibly be attracted to another man. But that's just speculation. Regarding the use of the word "gay", I think it's the most acceptable one. I personally prefer faggot, but that gets me into trouble with other gayers.

 

wait... you are joking, right?

I get it. Very funny.

 

Mostly joking. But it's true, I really haven't.