'Ex-Gays' Seek a Say in Schools

Perhaps we have failure to communicate. My point was that the APA and a significant number of homosexual practitioners have resisted the classification of homosexual activity as a mental disorder.

Consequently, my point was that to be successful in opposing homosexual activity, one must either convince the APA, et al, to change their position or attack the practice on different grounds. As an example, rather that directly asserting that homosexual behavior is a mental disorder, the indirect approach would be to logically show that it can not be otherwise though comparison to similar activities.

Perhaps we have failure to communicate.

Or possibly disparate goals? I think we are on the same 'side' on this issue; however, I come at this from a perspective of effectivess being more important than being right... Assuming potential effectiveness (potential success) being correlated in ascending order directly to spheres of concern, influence, and control -I tend to separate the wheat from the chaff and focus on the vital few goals that can be realized (convincing the APA of anything is not one of these)

I am occupied right now and I will have to get back to this when I can give it due attention...

If one accepts that the natural, normal function of sexual activity is between two members of the opposite sex and the ultimate, natural, normal purpose of sex activity is procreation, then sexual activity which intentionally violates these tenants is, by definition, abnormal and therefore, dysfunctional.

If one accepts that the natural, normal function of the mouth is the ingestion of material sufficient to supply adequate nutrition and hydration, then uses of the mouth for other purposes such as kissing other people or consuming candy are, by definition, abnormal and therefore disfunctional.

If one accepts that the natural, normal function of the mouth is the ingestion of material sufficient to supply adequate nutrition and hydration, then uses of the mouth for other purposes such as kissing other people or consuming candy are, by definition, abnormal and therefore disfunctional.

You have, of course, ignored that fact that the mouth has multiple natural purposes beyond the intake of nutrition. Among these remaining natural functions are the mouth’s function as an alternate air intake and a communication device. Kissing is a form of communication just as is speech. Eating candy is a form of nutrition intake, the adequacy of which is dependent upon the body’s state of health and caloric needs. All of these activities are natural uses of the mouth. Therefore, your analogy fails logically.

If you intended point was that human genitalia naturally have multiple purposes, you could have just so stated. It is true that human genitalia also naturally serve as organs of liquid body waste elimination as another natural function beyond procreation. In contrast, the anal orifice of the human body serves but one natural purpose, solid body waste elimination. Therefore, use of this portion of the body for any other purpose could not logically be considered a natural function.

Has this clarified the issue for you?

Here's the plan:

1) Create some bogus statistics about ex-gay suicide attempts. Why are ex-gays attempting suicide? Because they are the subject of ridicule and intolerance by homosexual extremists.

2) Demand that schools set up "ex-gay safe zones" on campus and ex-gay clubs.

3) Hold an annual "Day of Silence," in an effort to publicize schools' suppression of ex-gay speech.

"If one accepts that the natural, normal function of the mouth is the ingestion of material sufficient to supply adequate nutrition and hydration, then uses of the mouth for other purposes such as kissing other people or consuming candy are, by definition, abnormal and therefore disfunctional."

I think that this is one of my main stumbling blocks here.
This discussion assumes that sexual activity os solely for the purpose of reproduction, and that recreation or any mental or emotional stimulus or satisfaction is not a reason or purpose for it.

If you accept that procreation is the sole purpose of sexual activity, then Lucky Dog's case is very strong and convincing. However, I'm not convinced that this is it's sole purpose.

My other point of question is as follows:

When a smoker manages to give up smoking, the alternative is to not smoke, which is the natural condition.

For a human being to totally give up sexual activity (masturbation, sexual excitement) isn't comparable, as the human natural function is to be sexually active in some way. The sexual expression is also connected to mental health, and is a basic human function.

The alternative that I feel you would propose would be to redirect it to normal sexual activity, directed towards the opposite sex.
Taking into account that it is possible that the error of same-sex attraction might, in many homosexuals, be a fixed condition in the brain that mental treatment cannot correct, the correction may only be able to go as far as containing the effects of the condition as opposes to curing it... in these cases.

This is an interesting discussion, but my own focus is really on how it impacts upon society, and how that can be contained and 'made safe' as far as possible.

"Your concern about the dangers of homosexual behavior and the orientation toward it are laudable. In deed, I am also concerned. However, the first step in addressing this problem (or any problem, for that matter) is to strip it of all emotional and propagandistic baggage, i.e., call it exactly what it is. Reality in assessment is essential. Twisting the language to call something “gay” to avoid correct naming it is just one such example. Another is pretending that homosexual activity is not a violation of the natural function of sex. Yet another is insisting that homosexual behavior should somehow entitle its practitioners to rights not afforded the practitioner of any other detrimental behavior.

On this I am a 'convert', and in total agreement with you, and I hope to contribute the best I can towards convincing others.

Obesity is defined by behavior....

While there is a behavior component to obesity, there is a definite genetic component as well. No genetic cause of homosexuality has ever been proven--not because it hasn't been looked for--but because, as Lucky Dog has pointed out, genes that reduce the likelihood of reproduction tend not to be passed on.

Obesity is appropriately addressed in public school health classes--as something to avoid. It would be appropriate to address homosexuality in this way for the same reason--it's an unhealthy lifestyle. In fact, if male homosexuals could be persuaded to trade their homosexuality for obesity this would be a great public health achievement. Even smoking is far safer than male homosexuality.

If you accept that procreation is the sole purpose of sexual activity, then Lucky Dog's case is very strong and convincing. However, I'm not convinced that this is it's sole purpose.

Please do not confuse “sole purpose” with “primary purpose” or “natural purpose.” Heterosexual activity involves other natural purposes beneficial to procreation but not directly, biologically required. One of these beneficial, auxiliary, natural purposes is pair bonding through mutual love, intimacy and trust. The creation of a stable pair of heterosexual parents establishes the primary requisite of a loving and protective environment with proper role models for child rearing, another aid to perpetuation of the species.

My other point of question is as follows:

… sexual expression is also connected to mental health, and is a basic human function.

There are normal human beings who maintain a state of celibacy without detriment to their psyche. This state may be a religious requirement or just a personal moral requirement. Nonetheless, the existence of such individuals in a normal state of mental health logically defeats any argument that abstinence from sexual intercourse is necessarily detrimental to emotional and mental health.

The alternative that I feel you would propose would be to redirect it to normal sexual activity, directed towards the opposite sex.

Essentially, you are correct, although, as previously noted, abstinence is not excluded from the recommended alternatives.

Taking into account that it is possible that the error of same-sex attraction might, in many homosexuals, be a fixed condition in the brain that mental treatment cannot correct, the correction may only be able to go as far as containing the effects of the condition as opposes to curing it... in these cases.

Let’s examine your implied point from three perspectives:

First, from a societal perspective, it is the behavior of the individual that is the concern. If homosexual practitioners completely cease engaging in the activity, society’s requirements are satisfied as all of the detrimental impacts of such behavior disappear.

Second, from the perspective of the homosexual practitioner and/or those who feel a compulsion to engage in such activities, the problem appears not to be completely solved. However, given that it is possible to be mentally healthy with a life style of abstinence, the presence of a “fixed condition” and absence of a “cure,” become logically irrelevant provided the individual willfully controls his behavior.

Third, from the perspective of a mental health professional, an obsessive-compulsive behavior (i.e., one whose possessor cannot willfully control) can be treated with drugs, behavior modification therapy or institutionalization. Therefore, avenues of treatment are available satisfying the requirement for humane and compassionate alternatives to doing nothing for those cannot control their behavior.

This is an interesting discussion, but my own focus is really on how it impacts upon society, and how that can be contained and 'made safe' as far as possible.

From society’s “safety” perspective, the most acceptable course of action is for all homosexual behavior to completely cease. This goal can logically be achieved in one of two ways: homosexual practitioners can become celibate or engage only in heterosexual activity.

Seems I have seen this plan in action before?

:-)

Excellent!

You really know your subject.

***Please do not confuse “sole purpose” with “primary purpose” or “natural purpose.”***

Your explaination makes a lot of sense.

On your second point:
***There are normal human beings who maintain a state of celibacy without detriment to their psyche.***

I wasn't refering to sexual intercourse, but to 'sexual activity'. I think we are at crossed purposes on this point. I wasn't clear. I am already assuming that the individual was celibate, but the difficulty comes with abstainance from any expulsion of fluid.
It's only the very devout religious who maintain any sort of total sexual abstainance, and that's achieved only with conciderable mental and emotional effort. It hardly relates to the standard homosexual.

I think that my general point is that even when an individual ceases 'intercourse' and any other sexual activity WITH another, they will still indulge privately with their own sexual imaginings, and be concidered celibate. This may be concidered to be harmless by society, but it is still a perpetuation of the condition.

***From society’s “safety” perspective, the most acceptable course of action is for all homosexual behavior to completely cease. This goal can logically be achieved in one of two ways: homosexual practitioners can become celibate or engage only in heterosexual activity.***

It's unrealistic to think that homosexual behavior would cease. But society can protect itself from those who it knows to have, and to have had, homosexual 'relations' by restricting the positions those individuals can have within society.
If an individual is known to have had homosexual interaction, then it is most likely that they will still have that desire, or 'inclination'.

My point through all this has been my concern that homosexuals should not be given direct access to those who can be influenced and harmed by it.
The reality is that the majority of homosexuals would totally resist any concept that their condition should be treated, and so the clear solution, in my opinion, is restricted access.

Excellent! … You really know your subject…. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

Thank you.

On your second point:

There are normal human beings who maintain a state of celibacy without detriment to their psyche.

It's only the very devout religious who maintain any sort of total sexual abstinence, and that's achieved only with considerable mental and emotional effort…

You are incorrect. While it is certainly true that many who remain celibate do so for religious reasons, there are many who do so because of a personal moral code.

Nonetheless, let me address your point directly. Perhaps, those homosexual practitioners who wish to leave the lifestyle should be encouraged to explore the success that many ex-homosexuals have enjoyed with the support of religion and a religious support group, such as Operation Exodus. Additionally, a religious approach gives the would-be-ex-homosexual a strong moral code that can be internalized and relied upon.

If homosexuality is, as you have postulated in other posts, akin to an addiction, then a caring support group is essential. This principle has been demonstrated many times over. Beyond religious support groups such as Operation Exodus, there are secular support groups for homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle. Among such support groups is PFOX. There are others potentially available, as well.

…It hardly relates to the standard homosexual… they will still indulge privately with their own sexual imaginings, and be considered celibate. This may be considered to be harmless by society, but it is still a perpetuation of the condition.

Your point is potentially valid, but it is more related to therapeutic reversal of the individual’s mental situation than to the concerns of society. Nonetheless, whatever legal activity any individual chooses to engage in the privacy their own home is not the business of society in general. As I noted earlier:

Security at the sacrifice of reasonable liberty is not worth it. All of life is a balance between conflicting rights, liberties, and responsibilities. The balance must be struck carefully.

From society’s “safety” perspective, the most acceptable course of action is for all homosexual behavior to completely cease. This goal can logically be achieved in one of two ways: homosexual practitioners can become celibate or engage only in heterosexual activity.

It's unrealistic to think that homosexual behavior would cease.

Unfortunately, you are probably correct, given the fact that the very word in English for homosexual activity, sodomy, comes from a record thousands of years old.

But society can protect itself from those who it knows to have, and to have had, homosexual 'relations' by restricting the positions those individuals can have within society.

A recent Supreme Court case ruled that homosexual acts committed in the privacy of the home are not properly subject to societal control. Therefore, your premise of “knowing those who engage, or have engaged, in homosexual relations” would be restricted to those who self-confess or have been convicted of engaging in a lewd, public homosexual act. As you can see, from a societal perspective, your postulated approach leaves a pretty large area (from a societal view) of potentially “unknowable,” homosexual activity. Consequently, beyond the potentially unlawful, liberty restrictions such an approach implies, it would be feckless against those who keep their mouths shut and don’t get caught publicly.

If an individual is known to have had homosexual interaction, then it is most likely that they will still have that desire, or 'inclination'.

You may correct. However, from our society’s view of personal liberty and individual rights, one can not be presumed guilty of an act before they have committed it.

My point through all this has been my concern that homosexuals should not be given direct access to those who can be influenced and harmed by it.

Your concern is valid based upon a history of case studies. A private employer can potentially put in place certain protective procedures (assuming that pointless additions to anti-discrimination codes for sexual orientation are kept out). However, no system is perfect and a determined adversary, intent on doing harm, will find ways to breach the system. The best that can hoped for is to deny access to the majority of those who would do harm.

Unfortunately, there is a large group of homosexual activists who are determined to force their lifestyle on society regardless of its detrimental impacts. Among other actions, these individuals adopt deceptive methods such as attempting to get the term “sexual orientation” incorporated into anti-discrimination codes. Such an action is ridiculous given, as we have discussed, that no internal, mental “orientation” can be known by someone other than its possessor absent some, overt action. If there is an action, then the term “orientation” is meaningless from a societal viewpoint.

The reality is that the majority of homosexuals would totally resist any concept that their condition should be treated, and so the clear solution, in my opinion, is restricted access.

You may be correct. However, restricted access would require some new laws and tougher enforcement of some current laws. Such actions would require a dedicated campaign to inform and convince society, at large, that homosexual activity is harmful beyond participating individual impacts. Unfortunately, a strong liberal bias in the media makes this type of effort difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, the only option remaining is for individuals to mount as many, one-on-one, anti-homosexual activity, information campaigns as possible. Additionally, as many homosexual practitioners as possible must be convinced that they can, and should, leave the lifestyle and such is, not only possible, but desirable from a personal perspective.