'Ex-Gays' Seek a Say in Schools

Los Angeles Times ^ | May 28, 2006 | Stephanie Simon

[DBeers]

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Over the last decade, gay-rights activists have pushed programs to support gay and lesbian students in public schools. Their success is striking:

More than 3,000 Gay-Straight Alliance clubs meet across the country. Nearly half a million students take a vow of silence one day each spring in an annual event to support gay rights. California may soon require textbooks to feature the contributions of gays and lesbians throughout history.

Critics, mostly on the religious right, view all this as promoting the "homosexual lifestyle." Unable to stop it, they have turned to a new strategy: demanding equal time for their view in public schools and on college campuses.

Conservative Christians and Jews have teamed up with men and women who call themselves "ex-gay" to lobby — and even sue — for the right to tell teenagers that they can "heal" themselves of unwanted same-sex attractions.

They argue that schools have an obligation to balance gay-pride themes with the message that gay and lesbian students can go straight through "reparative therapy." In this view, homosexuality is not a fixed or inborn trait but a symptom of emotional distress — a disorder that can be cured.

Alan Chambers, a leading ex-gay activist, recalls how scared and depressed he felt when a high-school counselor advised him to deal with his attraction to other boys by accepting his homosexuality. He had no choice, she told him: He was gay. "It was very damaging," Chambers said. "I didn't want that. I hadn't chosen it."

His senior year, Chambers found his way to Exodus International, a network of groups that support ex-gays. He is now married to a woman, a father of two — and the president of Exodus.

~SNIP~

[supercat]

Your posting and quoting style is very hard to read. I don't believe I advocated that homosexual advocates should be given time to present their viewpoints to children, nor should they be given special privileges and such.

My suspicion is that homosexual attraction, like many addictive disorders, results from a variety of factors, both genetic and environmental. It would seem that there are some people who are attracted others of the same sex, but do not like being so attracted; these people would like to cure what they see as an affliction. In response to your question about "who cares", I would say that the only reliably effective way to cure an affliction is to recognize and diagnose it. Society at large might not care about the condition, but anyone seeking to treat or study it certainly should.

You have correctly identified the paradox that homosexual practitioners are trying to turn into scam. Additionally, those who refuse to logically think the situation through are helping perpetrate this scam on the American public.

In discussing the issue, I think it is very important to be clear about terminology. Terms like "psychosis" which have multiple meanings are not helpful. I see no reason for believing homosexuals must be delusional. If a person gets physical pleasure from having parts of their body manipulated a certain way, that physical pleasure is a matter of fact regardless of whether the manipulation in question is useful or healthy.

[mikeyc]

You give me a lot to think about, but I'm sorry that I can't cover and respond to your points today. I'm sure that we could continue with this for a conciderable time, but I'm not sure that this thread is the appropriate place to continue it indefinitely, even if you were willing.

With my own understanding of what it is to be a homosexual, I don't recognize the definition of 'psychosis' in any of my sexual experiences, or in the personalities of homosexuals who I've known over the years. However, I'm an open book.
I need to read your explanation a few more times in order to get a proper grasp. It's something I would need to explore more thoroughly in order to formulate an opinion.

On other areas, your logical use of 'action' is interesting, and I see what you mean when you use it. I'm no intellectual, and I've struggled to absorb and get my head around the way you approach the logic that you put forward. Much of what you explain presents a very different way of looking at the illness/disorder/condition from any way that I've previously approach the subject.

"Regardless of whether an action is taking place in private or in public, there is still an action. This situation is in contrast to the existence of thoughts or feelings on which no action is taken, either in private or public. Therefore, my point stands as originally postulated."

I'm reassured that you concider private 'action' can 'accuse' a homosexual practitioner... In theory, since only they are aware of it.

There are still a number of points you make that I have issue with, but unfortunately I don't have time right now.
I get the impression that you are of a particular philosophy on this subject, and I'm sure there are a number of others who use FR.
I totally take on your advice in how to address the homosexual problem, and I believe that I am already engaging each of the points that you make there. I realise that i have to be objective, and logical when looking at the subject and working it out.

Thank you.

[Lucky Dog]

I am pleased to discuss this issue with you. I would be more than happy to continue the discussion at your voilition.

[DBeers]

-as a side note I have sometimes thought the homosexual disorder not always a choice (not to be confused with homosexual activity an observed behavioral characteristic that is always a choice) to be a syndrome...

With the predisposition comprised of observed psychological symptoms and or behavioral characteristics -cause(s) unknown...

[Alter Kaker]

It is also a worldwide health problem, since it is the root cause of AIDS.

I understand that homosexuals are at a higher risk of AIDS than the general population, but how is homosexuality its "root cause?"

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I don't recognize the definition of 'psychosis' in any of my sexual experiences...

Stop right there... Two females together or two males together cannot have “sex” with each other. The union has absolutely zero chance of producing progeny.

It is an axiomatic state of mammalian biology that exclusively requires one male and one female joined in coitus.

[DBeers]

Technically you are precisely correct. HOWEVER, you bring to light an example of why Engineers & Scientists seldom make good managers of people...

LOL

[OneWingedShark]

Very well put reply.

[Lucky Dog]

Your posting and quoting style is very hard to read.

Sorry. I try to italicize the quote to which I am responding. My current comments are in normal black font. I color code and italicize quotes from other sources or old posts, usually using blue for my own repeat items. For items I want to emphasize, I use bold print and/or underline. However, I am willing to change to something that would be better if you have suggestions.

I don't believe I advocated that homosexual advocates should be given time to present their viewpoints to children, nor should they be given special privileges and such.

Sorry, again. I never intended to imply that you did. The original post that started this thread was about giving ex-homosexual practitioners equal time in schools to present their side in contrast to currently practicing homosexuals presenting theirs to school children unrebutted. That was the source of the comment. I hope this has clarified the situation for you.

My suspicion is that homosexual attraction, like many addictive disorders, results from a variety of factors, both genetic and environmental. It would seem that there are some people who are attracted others of the same sex, but do not like being so attracted; these people would like to cure what they see as an affliction.

To be seen as an affliction implies that homosexual behavior is a behavioral disorder. However, apparently a large segment of the homosexual practitioners do not wish it to be so classified. Additionally, neither, apparently, does the APA, having removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. If this line of reasoning is followed to its logical conclusion, then homosexual behavior is purely a matter of choice, not an addiction or any other kind of disorder. (Please note that I have not said that I necessarily agree with this line of thought.)

In response to your question about "who cares", I would say that the only reliably effective way to cure an affliction is to recognize and diagnose it. Society at large might not care about the condition, but anyone seeking to treat or study it certainly should.

You have no argument from me. However, I would call to your attention that the beginning of the thread was about societal reaction to homosexual presentations in school, something in which society should be deeply interested. My point in asking rhetorically who cares was to logically establish the fact that what goes on in an individual’s head (thoughts or emotions) is none of society’s business unless, and until, that individual chooses to act on those thoughts or emotions or the thoughts and emotions are symptoms of a mental disorder.

You have correctly identified the paradox that homosexual practitioners are trying to turn into scam. Additionally, those who refuse to logically think the situation through are helping perpetrate this scam on the American public. --- note: this is from one of my own old posts and was quoted in your most recent post.

In discussing the issue, I think it is very important to be clear about terminology. Terms like "psychosis" which have multiple meanings are not helpful.

Unless you are going to use purely medical terms or other such scientific jargon, practically ever term has multiple meanings or shades of meaning. Standard debating procedure is to define terms at the beginning of the discussion. I attempted to do so on this thread but others objected. Therefore, I am using a medical term, “psychosis” to describe a mental disorder. Repeated below for your convenience is my rationale for so using the term. Again, I am using blue font italicized for my old quotes and purple font for reference material with points I wish to emphasize underlined and in bold.

Psychosis - A group of symptoms in major mental illness that include loss of contact with reality, and breakdown of normal social functioning, and extreme personality changes. Psychotic episodes may be short-lived or chronic and worsening. People affected may experience hallucinations, delusions, regressive behavior, and an inability to control impulses. --- Mental Health Glossary

Psychosis A mental disorder characterised by gross impairment in reality testing as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, markedly incoherent speech or disorganised and agitated behaviour without apparent awareness on the part of the patient of the incomprehensibility of his behaviour, the term is also used in a more general sense to refer to mental disorders in which mental functioning is sufficiently impaired as to interfere grossly with the patients capacity to meet the ordinary demands of life.

Historically, the term has been applied to many conditions, for example manic depressive psychosis, that were first described in psychotic patients, although many patients with the disorder are not judged psychotic. --- The On-line Medical Dictionary

The common thread throughout these definitions are as follows:

First, a psychosis is a mental disorder.

Second, a psychosis usually distorts the sufferer’s perception of reality usually (but not always) resulting in dysfunctional behaviors.

Let us examine the application of particularly the second point above in relation to homosexual practitioners and those so oriented. A distortion of reality can be judged to exist in the mind of the homosexual practitioner in that his or her perception of the natural function of his or her genitalia does not conform to reality.

The natural function of human genitalia is complementary to the opposite sex and its primary purpose is procreation, i.e., propagation of the species. The homosexual practitioner and those so oriented, engage, or wish to engage, in activities that can in no way be judged to be providing complementary function of genitalia with the opposite sex. Additionally, homosexual activity can in no way result in procreation.

The bottom line conclusion is that homosexual activity and/or the desire for such can only be the result of a distorted view of reality. Additionally, homosexual activity is dysfunctional in that it can never result in procreation.

I see no reason for believing homosexuals must be delusional.

Please see the line of reasoning posted directly above.

If a person gets physical pleasure from having parts of their body manipulated a certain way, that physical pleasure is a matter of fact regardless of whether the manipulation in question is useful or healthy.

Using your line of reasoning, you would see nothing wrong with an individual playing “Russian roulette” if it gave the individual pleasure. Beyond the questionable mental health issue of this practice, if these individuals were playing with some else’s head next to their own would you still see no problem? Such is the case with homosexual practitioners spreading their diseases and attempting to spread their lifestyles to our children though the schools.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I understand that the majority of humans who enjoy sexual activity also enjoy fantasies and imaginings which stimulate and enhance the experience.

Pornography, the idolatry of perversion. Pornographic images are phantasms. They are nothing real, just as any other image you see on the television is not real...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

I don't think any of this is exclusive to homosexuality...

No, it is not. See #84...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

For example, consider astrology...

Astrology is another blatant example of primitive pagan idolatry and fantasy with planets of the solar system assigned the names of pagan gods, stars grouped as fantastical images of mythical legend, whereby the fate of a person is purportedly revealed. The astrologers are revered as prophets by psychotic, neurotic adherents in frequent fanatical devotion to any musings these charlatans utter.

Images of distant stars being most often many centuries and millenniums old, are no things corporeal. The actual objects have ceased to exist as perceived and are phantasms, mere ghosts of what once was long ago.

Attempting divination by optical illusions emanated from long past objects, avoiding your actual self-determined future repeatedly disregarded in favor of musings by a mystical witch doctor is neurotic, idolatrous and fanatical.

Astrology is simply an epic lunatic fantasy, and saying so is the ultimate blasphemy for such pagan religionists.

The idea of fate is rooted in the fantasy that some imaginary, ethereal forces determine the course of human events (something an atheist like myself will categorically reject).

This is contrary to the Judaic-Christian ideas that God allows free will to choose or reject Salvation, and that God alone reveals prophecy (a.k.a. Providence). It is also an attempt to counterfeit and replace those ideas, where pantheons of fantasies are the medium of infinitization and not a singular limitless Creator.

[Sun]

Just how serious are the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage? Last month, Massachusetts told Catholic Charities of Boston that it could not maintain its license to perform adoption services unless it abided by the anti-discrimination laws of the state, which in Massachusetts means placing children with same-sex couples. This despite the fact that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching and moral doctrine. The result is that Boston Catholic Charities is getting out of the adoption business.

Is this episode an aberration or a sign of things to come? If same-sex marriage is a civil right, then shouldn’t the state punish those who refuse to respect that right? The potential for religious entities that adhere to traditional sexual morality is enormous: radio broadcasting licenses, professional licenses, university accreditation, even tax exempt status of faith-based charities. Is this the legal path we have embarked on? If so, what is the fate of religious liberty?


http://www.heritage.org/press/events/ev052206b.cfm


SLIPPERY SLOPE

[Sun]

Part of the article explains why homosexuals should realize it is a choice. It might lead them to happier, healthier and most importantly, holier lives.

from the article: "Alan Chambers, a leading ex-gay activist, recalls how scared and depressed he felt when a high-school counselor advised him to deal with his attraction to other boys by accepting his homosexuality. He had no choice, she told him: He was gay. "It was very damaging," Chambers said. "I didn't want that. I hadn't chosen it."

His senior year, Chambers found his way to Exodus International, a network of groups that support ex-gays. He is now married to a woman, a father of two — and the president of Exodus."

[Calpernia]

>>>>>California may soon require textbooks to feature the contributions of gays and lesbians throughout history.

Well, maybe there is a bright side. Hitler will get more coverage.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You are very good with the application of logic.

This is a gem...

Using your line of reasoning, you would see nothing wrong with an individual playing “Russian roulette” if it gave the individual pleasure. Beyond the questionable mental health issue of this practice, if these individuals were playing with some else’s head next to their own would you still see no problem?

A great analogy for the social psychosis generated by Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture (although argument from analogy is informal fallacy, but often applied logically for those whom logic fails).

[Lucky Dog]

You are very good with the application of logic.

Thank you

...analogy is informal fallacy...

Guilty... however, it was used as an illustrative rhetorical device... An acceptable departure from pure logic in a debate forum.

[Lucky Dog]

Very well put reply.

Thank you.

[supercat]

Stop right there... Two females together or two males together cannot have “sex” with each other. The union has absolutely zero chance of producing progeny.

Many people engage in behaviors involving their genitalia for purposes other than the production of progeny. I think it pretty clear that such behavior gives those people pleasure; indeed, that's why they do it. Where's the "delusion" in that? A behavior may be unwise or unhealthy, but that doesn't imply that it's not pleasurable.

[Lucky Dog]

<-as a side note I have sometimes thought the homosexual disorder not always a choice (not to be confused with homosexual activity an observed behavioral characteristic that is always a choice) to be a syndrome... With the predisposition comprised of observed psychological symptoms and or behavioral characteristics -cause(s) unknown...

Your rationale and statements imply, or out right assert, that homosexual activity is a behavioral or mental disorder.

From one of my other posts: However, apparently a large segment of the homosexual practitioners do not wish it to be so classified. Additionally, neither, apparently, does the APA, having removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. If this line of reasoning is followed to its logical conclusion, then homosexual behavior [and the orientation toward such] is purely a matter of choice, not an addiction or any other kind of disorder. (Please note that I have not said that I necessarily agree with this line of thought.)

To remain germane to the current societal discussion, I fear you will have to modify your view or convince others such as the APA to modify theirs.

[DBeers]

I would suggest the APA necessarily must redefine their faulty assessment.

Logic requires it as the APA must necessarily premise what it defines as the norm to be what the norm observed actually is...

The APA needs to get out of the business of attempting to redefine normality with moral relative reasoning without premise in observation and instead get back to the basics of psychology, that of objectively observing and categorizing individual human behavior in relation to all human behavior and or categorizing individual human behavior in regards to whether it is self-destructive versus innocuous in relation to the individual, others, or society as a whole...

Otherwise psychology is but the practice of a humanist religion versus a "scientific" endeavor...