Are we to believe that there has never, ever been a person with homosexual feelings, perhaps who has engaged in homosexual behavior and/or identified as a homosexual person, who has, for whatever reasons and through whatever means, gone on to lead a functional happy life while also refraining from ever engaging in homosexual behavior (again), perhaps even falling in love with someone of the opposite sex, marrying, and having an enjoyable heterosexual love life?
It is awfully difficult to prove a universal negative, yet the way some journalists and bloggers and activists talk, it is obvious that they assume their universal negative – that there is no such thing as an "ex-gay" and no therapy ever works - is true, and they expect the rest of us to believe their assertion.
According to these people, each and every person claiming to be a changed or former homosexual is a deliberate liar, or perhaps self-deluded (and how would anyone else know?), or deluded by someone else. All are treated by some homosexuality advocates as though they are deliberate liars, savaged in their media. Such is identifty politics – stand up for the rights of homosexual people, but only if they are on the reservation. If they step off the reservation, brutalize them.
If someone asks for help and wants help in changing their actions or feelings, they can find help for just about any behavior or feelings – but for what I can only think are reasons tied to identity politics and groupthink, someone asking for help in dealing with same-sex attraction in any other way than engaging in homosexual behavior is attacked and anyone who tries to help is attacked.
One could argue it is a waste of time and effort, but we allow millions of people to waste their time and effort trying to help others stop various patterns of behavior without getting outraged about it. How many people have been going to see a therapist for years, talking about the same problems over and over again? Nobody is attacking those therapists. This seems to be the one area (for now, anyway) where there is outrage.
I do not think that the ability for one person to change mandates that all others change. I fully support the rights that allow a person to share his life with someone of the same sex. But I also support the right of someone who wants to modify his behavior to employ another person to aid that effort. The homofascist will say that therapies in this area are harmful, and has gotten various professional associations to agree. But again, a universal negative is difficult to prove. Are we to believe that any and all techniques someone might try to curb certain sexual behaviors are harmful? We have universities, supported with tax money no less, teaching and training harmful things. If they were privately funded, my solution to my objection would be to not support them. If you don't want stop engaging in homosexual behavior, you're free to continue. But you should not be able to prevent someone else from seeking help in their desire to abstain.
Comment Policy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see somebody is accusing me of being in favor of emotional abuse. I haven't read the actual message (I have enough to laugh about this morning, perhaps I will go check it out when I need a good chuckle). I only saw the title.
ReplyDeleteI am not in favor of emotional abuse. I'm in favor of freedom of association. I am in favor of people being allowed to pursue their own personal choice for behavior modification, even if that behavior is natural for them. I am somewhat amused by this hysteria some people have over the fact that other people may not want to keep doing the same thing they are doing. Why does everyone have to keep acting the way you want to act?
I would like to ask anyone who accuses me of favoring emotional abuse because I think someone should be allowed to freely seek out help in changing their behavior or coping with their feelings... Do you denounce and/or want to outlaw people freely choosing to engage in any form whatsoever of BDSM? If you don't, then aren't you in favor of slavery and physical abuse?
Ok first of all you know you could actually READ what I have to say before mocking and belittling it. The fact that you are too damn lazy to read what I wrote before writing your little rebuttal makes me reticent to respond your replies. Some of your questions are answered in the original post.
ReplyDeleteIt is abuse because they are being publicly shamed by people like yourself into thinking that what they are doing is morally deviant or socially unacceptable. It is not that they *want* to not be heterosexual so much as they want to stop being constantly ridiculed, demeaned, told that they are immoral, discriminated against, etc. etc. They may have been led to believe they have a problem that needs to be fixed, but this is again systematic of the abuse itself.
Also this "behavior modification" never works. People who used to run such "treatments" publicly admit as much. It is junk psychology that does not work. Someone going to get treatment to change who they are because they are repeatedly told by society that they are "less than" everyone else is emotional abuse.
BDSM is a sexual kink that is consensual with both parties mainly because they both enjoy it. That is completely different than being shamed into thinking you need to undergo "treatment" to become something they are not so they will meet your high moral standards.
You are in favor of emotional abuse. You can explain it away anyway you please, but that does not change the fact that this is the case.
Now how about actually reading my article before you respond to it?
It is great that you have the ability to know the entire motivation of each and every single person who seeks assistance in this area, so that you can definitively say that nobody could possibly want some assistance in avoiding engaging in certain bebaviors. They can't possibly consent to "emotional abuse" but other people can readily consent to physical abuse. Fascinating.
ReplyDeleteAre you also against allowing a heterosexual man to seek counseling that will help him refrain from certain sexual behaviors? Perhaps having sex at all? Having sex with other women than his wife? Viewing suggestive images of underage (say, 16-year-old) girls?
"It is great that you have the ability to know the entire motivation of each and every single person who seeks assistance in this area, so that you can definitively say that nobody could possibly want some assistance in avoiding engaging in certain bebaviors."
ReplyDeletePlease explain to me what other reason someone else would have for doing such a thing. Why else would go through a long process of "therapy" unless they were shamed into believing that the way they currently were was unhealthy and abnormal? If you can provide me with a legitimate reason someone would have to do such a thing, this would be the time to do so. I'm guessing that you can't. The burden of proof is on you since the vast majority of the world thinks this "assistance" is harmful and abusive.
"They can't possibly consent to "emotional abuse" but other people can readily consent to physical abuse. Fascinating."
BDSM is not physical abuse. There is such a thing as a "safeword" to insure that whatever is being done stops when it becomes not fun anymore. When done safely and responsibly with both parties' consent, it is not abusive. You continue to bring forth that false dichotomy and it continues to be unconvincing.
BDSM is something that is entered into because everyone involved enjoys the activity, not because someone is shamed into taking the abuse from someone else.
"Are you also against allowing a heterosexual man to seek counseling that will help him refrain from certain sexual behaviors? Perhaps having sex at all?"
That depends on his reasons for doing so. They could be legitimate and they could not. In the case of your stupid litte ex-gay clinics the reasons for doing so are abusive. Generally doctors who misdiagnose people with illnesses are sued for malpractice. That is what your stupid little clinics are doing. They are misdiagnosing people as having something mentally wrong with them and then putting them through bogus therapy. At best, it's a scam. At worst, it's abuse. Take your pick.
"Viewing suggestive images of underage (say, 16-year-old) girls? "
Are you going down the "gay people are just as bad as pedophiles" road? Because that's not going to do anything but make you look like a jerk.
I don't think the "being gay and okay with it is like living on a reservation" metaphor is a very good one. Actually, it would probably be better to compare ex-gay programs to reservations— neither gay people nor Native Americans chose to be born that way, but both have been pressured or forced (usually by people who haven't been gay or Native American and haven't known what it's like to be either) into ex-gay programs and closets and onto reservations.
ReplyDeleteIf someone takes the initiative or otherwise freely chooses to embark on such an effort, nobody is holding a gun to their head. They do get savaged for doing so, though. Apparently, bullying and harassment of homosexual people is okay as long as a certain segment of the homosexuality advocacy movement is doing it.
ReplyDeleteI don’t have to explain any reason someone might have for wanting to get assistance so as to stop doing something or refrain from doing something in the first place. It is THEIR CHOICE to do so, and they should have that freedom. People do all sorts of things other people think are harmful or stupid or a waste of time and we quite often PROTECT their freedom to do so. There are people who are disgusted by their own behavior (I’m talking other things, not homosexual) without anyone else shaming them. In the case of same-sex attraction, someone may want to raise a child with a parent of the opposite sex. That is just ONE possibility, but again, they don’t need to justify themselves to you.
The vast majority of the world? Really? You mean like those African and Middle Eastern and Asian countries where they kill people for homosexuality? (Don’t judge, we have to embrace multiculturalism now, and no one culture is better than another.) If the world population is 6 billion people, do you really think 4 billion people are sitting around thinking about how harmful those therapies are?
BDSM is not physical abuse? Being whipped or slapped or whatever? Yes, there are safewords, and guess what… someone who doesn’t like a therapy can stop going. The therapy is done with both parties’ consent. I don’t expect to convince you, by the way. And again, you purport to know why every single person may ever enter into BDSM and that none of them could possibly be doing it out of shame or some other “wrong” reason.
I clearly asked about HETEROSEXUAL men, because I was NOT equating being attracted to 16-year-old girls to being gay. You say “it depends on the reasons”. What does it matter what the reasons are? Someone should have that choice.
There are all sorts of behaviors that seem to be natural to some people that one of them might want to stop.
My original points still stand. The insistence of certain segments of homosexuality advocacy that there can’t possibly be anyone who has successfully and happily managed their feelings in a way that doesn’t involve ongoing homosexual behavior is a claim they haven’t proven, and they should not bully people who seek or have received assistance.
former: > It is abuse because they are being publicly shamed by people like yourself into thinking that what they are doing is morally deviant or socially unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that what you are saying about PW?
But that isn't what PW said. On the contrary instead of being socially unacceptable he said, "I do not think that the ability for one person to change mandates that all others change. I fully support the rights that allow a person to share his life with someone of the same sex."
Sounds like FormerConservative is the one guilty of being too lazy to read what he is rebutting, and abusive -- if abuse is simply saying someone's actions are socially unacceptable.
former: > Why else would go through a long process of "therapy" unless they were shamed into believing that the way they currently were was unhealthy and abnormal?
I hope that you aren't presuming that because people work for something, that they must have been shamed into it. That simply doesn't make sense. People can and do choose between two otherwise perfectly good choices all the time.
former: > If you can provide me with a legitimate reason someone would have to do such a thing, this would be the time to do so. I'm guessing that you can't.
In the previous response I showed that Playful doesn't have to. He is right when he says he doesn't have to. You are the one over-reaching to presume there has to be a negative reason for people to work for something. And your over-reaching doesn't put the onus on anyone else.
But since you asked, lets say someone wants to have a child. And they want to practice tolerance, love, for the person who also had the child, because that child deserves equal status of both people who created them. That would logically add up to a need for someone of the other gender.
That doesn't say anything about homosexuality being good or bad, just that it is outside of the ways to achieve that one simple goal.
former: > BDSM is something that is entered into because everyone involved enjoys the activity, not because someone is shamed into taking the abuse from someone else.
Not according to Dan Savage, who says that it is okay to shame someone into such sexual acts by threatening to get it outside of the relationship if they don't consent.
There is nothing in your argument, or Savage's, that seems even remotely inspired by love in that act. It is designed to be abusive and humiliating (meaning shamed). Even if they want it that way, labeling it as abuse and shame is accurate. The consent may remove legal questions behind the abuse, but it doesn't change it from being by its very nature abuse and shame.
Besides, it seems former doesn't even believe his own argument. Either consent negates it being abuse or it doesn't. But for formerconservative, it is abuse even if it is just therapy solicited by someone. But it isn't abuse if they are physically hit and humiliated, even if they were extorted by the other person as a demand of the relationship.
Just one more inconsistency, Islam has the radical opinion that formerconservative misapplies to PW, yet on his website he speaks out against the evil of Islamophobia.
So the question remains, why should I take formerconservative seriously, when he doesn't even take his own arguments seriously enough to apply them consistently?
emily: > [...] both have been pressured or forced (usually by people who haven't been gay or Native American and haven't known what it's like to be either) into ex-gay programs and closets and onto reservations.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. There's a lot of supposition here about what ex-gays go through. A lot of assumptions about what they must go through, there is no other way of seeing it.
Well, here's an ex-gay speaking for himself on this issue...
__________________
Why have gay activists instigated media attention over ex-gays and the husband of Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann?
Apparently, Mr. Bachmann, who has a PhD in clinical psychology, operates several counseling centers which also offer services to homosexual clients seeking to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. But because even one ex-gay proves that homosexual behavior is not innate or immutable, the gay lobby's fear of their former members results in false claims and attacks aimed at preventing homosexuals from exercising their right to self-determination. They cannot bear to have even one homosexual leave homosexuality, hence their outrage at Dr. Bachmann.
I know because I am ex-gay myself. I suffer more harassment as a former homosexual than I ever did as an out and proud homosexual.
The ex-gay community includes thousands of former homosexuals like myself who benefited from counseling. We did not choose our homosexual feelings, but we did exercise our right to seek help to change those feelings. As a registered nurse, I saw hundreds of gay men die of AIDS before I finally left the gay lifestyle.
Contrary to the myths being generated by outraged homosexuals, counseling for unwanted same-sex attractions is not prohibited by any medical association. Unhappy homosexuals are not children in need of parental permission and can freely choose their own therapeutic treatment just like anyone else.
The Bachmann incident demonstrates that as homosexuals gain more civil rights, heterosexuals are losing theirs. Because gays are a wealthy and politically powerful minority, they claim access to media attention, political power and corporate influence that middle America does not have. --PFOX
OK PW, to make you happy, I'll assume that some of the gay people have perfectly legitimate reasons to visit such clinic. I will make that assumption, but that does not change the fact that many and I do mean many of the people who attended such clinics did so because they felt bullied into it and that they came out of it feeling abused and feeling as if they had to hide who they really were. That also does not change the fact that pretty much anyone with any credibility in the field of psychology thinks that the places do absolutely nothing to change anyone. They are to psychology what the Creation Museum is to science. I suggest that you go on netflix streaming and watch the documentary "One Nation Under God" which is all about such places and the people who attended them. It doesn't paint a very good picture of them. Also many people in the comments section of my original post have left other links that confirm what I am saying.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that these places should be allowed to continue to dupe people into believing in their junk science? You wouldn't support a doctor that was cheating people out of money by charging them exhorbitant prices for pills that were nothing but a placebo. That doctor would not be allowed to continue to practice. This is the psychological equivalent.
Also don't give me that bs about being concerned about their liberty. You aren't at all concerned about their liberty when it comes to them being allowed to marry the person that they love. Your concern for their liberty only extends to when they are doing something you personally agree with.
Someone could certainly be doing BDSM for a bad reason.... and you know what? If they are then BDSM has gone into the area of abuse. I didn't ever say that BDSM could never be abuse, but you tried to conflate as abuse in any and all instances.
I don't wish to bully the people who are seeking assistance. I never said that I did. They are the victims in this case. I wish to shut down the therapy groups or clinics or whatever they call themselves for practicing junk psychology and abusing and duping people.
@On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteI am not criticizing those who wish to change. I am criticizing the therapy, because it doesn't work and isn't based on anything resembling science or psychology or anything credible. It's just forcing people into gender roles in the hopes that it will straighten them out. Again, my criticism is not with the people who want to change. I mostly just feel bad for them, because they are unhappy with who they are. In many cases, I do think that their wish to change is based on external forces and not what they really want and the facts back that up.
I would say that threatening to cheat on someone if they don't consent to what you want is abuse. I disagree with Dan Savage in that case.
I am not someone who practices BDSM and I did not come here to argue to finer points. Therapy that is not by anyone who has any sort of license or training to give such therapy and is presented as something legitimate that will help someone is abuse. If BDSM is actually doing lasting physical damage to someone or they are being unduly pressured into it or it doesn't stop when they want it to. BDSM is something people do in the privacy of their own homes, not something that people pay for as medical treatment. It is a stupid and vacuous empty analogy designed to do nothing more than get me off track on my argument.
As far as Islam is concerned. I don't think there is a consensus of all Muslims on homosexuality anymore than there is consensus of all Christians on that issue and just because I may disagree with some members of a faith does not mean that I agree that they should be oppressed. You're just being stupid if you think all of Islam universally agrees on that topic or that if I don't agree with Islam on some issue I am for their oppression.
My arguments are consistent you are just finding loopholes and being obtuse in an effort to justify your own bigotry. PW has the an inconsistancy that makes my head explode in his Eddie Haskel-ish insistence that he is just for their liberty all the while crying and moaning everytime they get anything resembling equality when it comes to marriage.
former: > I am not criticizing those who wish to change. I am criticizing the therapy
ReplyDeleteThe people that use it to find a change, I doubt, share your low opinion of the help they sought out to make that change.
former: > it doesn't work and isn't based on anything resembling science or psychology
Actually they use methodologies of personal change which are entirely accepted by the psychological community. In other words, they use methodologies which are established in many other situations where people have a natural tendency that they want to change. Like smoking, or alcoholism, or anger, or procrastination, the therapies I'm aware of simply allow a person to become make more cognitive and less reactive decisions.
former: > It's just forcing people into gender roles in the hopes that it will straighten them out.
You've run again into the fallacy of assuming force or coercion when you already admitted, "some of the gay people have perfectly legitimate reasons to visit such clinic".
And the clinic, aside from any bias you may have towards the subject it is applied to, has legitimate means to help people make the decisions they want to make.
former: > I would say that threatening to cheat on someone if they don't consent to what you want is abuse. I disagree with Dan Savage in that case.
I appreciate the honesty. I agree with that take on Savage.
former: > BDSM is something people do in the privacy of their own homes, not something that people pay for as medical treatment.
Sadly the transaction of money for a treatment of a need is not something unique to either case.
former: > It is a stupid and vacuous empty analogy designed to do nothing more than get me off track on my argument.
To the contrary, it is important to show that the humiliation and hurt you read into a situation of solicited support is abuse, is incongruent with actions designed to hurt and humiliate that is also solicited.
former: > I don't think there is a consensus of all Muslims
The important distinction is that Islam preaches punishment of death, and has a prescribed law of government which includes the death penalty for homosexuality, whether all Muslims believe in it or not.
When they feel that their inability to practice their law (and kill homosexuals) is oppression, where do you draw the line?
former: > My arguments are consistent you are just finding loopholes and being obtuse in an effort to justify your own bigotry.
So far the only person who's shown bigotry (as in it is okay for people you like to do bad things, but not people you don't like to do good things) is you.
Wait... On Lawn... did you actually just quote PFOX?
ReplyDeleteThe man you quote is Gregory Quinlan,a man who makes his living off being an "ex-gay," so obviously he would have no motivation to be anything other than completely honest... right? What we do know is that he married a "former" lesbian and then divorced her shortly afterwards, three years ago
PFOX is organization that presented Richard Cohen and his cuddle therapy as evidence in an amicus brief during the Prop 8 trial? Do you know what cuddle therapy is? That's when Richard Cohen, an "ex-gay" himself, spoons other gay men for hours in order to, basically, hug the gay out of them. Nothing suspicious about that...
PFOX has demonstrable history of lying, so much so that various scientists have repeatedly been forced to issue corrections, such as this one from Dr. Gary Remafedi, "PFOX misuses one of my studies on suicide attempts in gay youth to argue that people should not identify their sexual orientation at young ages. Our findings do not support the contention that young people choose their identity or the timing of events in identity formation. Nor is there any evidence that the availability of GSAs influences those developmental processes."
Then there is the whopper of a lie that Regina Griggs, president of PFOX told when she claimed that, "Over 70 percent of young kids 13- to 24-years-old, men having sex with men, are now HIV-positive." Griggs also lied and claimed PFOX was "attacked" at the Arlington county fair and had to summon police protection. Turns out neither the police nor the fair have any record of such an event happening.
Then there is the fact that the PFOX webmaster sent a letter to the Montgomery County (Maryland) Council saying, "Hopefully, it will be one of your daughters who gets raped first!"
Of the many disreputable anti-gay organizations you could quote, PFOX is among the worst.
You should visit Ex-Gay Watch, and there you will find the testimony of many Ex-Ex-gays. All of which pretty much state no one is ever "ex-gay."
I will not be back because this conversation has proven to be futile.
ReplyDeleteHowever before I go:
a) I did not ever admit that people might have legitimate reasons to visit the clinic, other than for the sake of argument so that I wouldn't have to listen to PW repeat over and over again "You can't know what's in their mind. You can't know their reasons."
b) I and others of my readers have repeatedly posted facts debunking these clinics. Look in the comments of my post. Watch that documentary on Netflix. Read the very comment above mine. There is lots of evidence that these Ex-Gay ministries are fraudulent. You have yet to address any of it.
c) No one has yet addressed the blatant hypocrisy of PW claiming so valiantly that he just cares about these people's liberty when he so obviously does not care about it when it comes to them marrying the people that they love. No one has any right to accuse me of inconsistently until you address that.
Now On Lawn has gone over into the area of Islam-bashing and has made up his own definition of the word bigotry. I can't continue in an argument that ignores facts, makes up it's own defintion of words, and engages in more false dichotomies than I've ever seen. It's time for me to leave.
Enjoy your gay witch hunt, Mr. Walrus.
hydra: > so obviously he would have no motivation to be anything other than completely honest... right?
ReplyDeleteFunny, in his quote is a reason to question the honesty of all of the homosexual activists... "But because even one ex-gay proves that homosexual behavior is not innate or immutable, the gay lobby's fear of their former members results in false claims and attacks aimed at preventing homosexuals from exercising their right to self-determination."
I'll agree, the message that a gay has no choice but act out homosexuality is fatalistic, and against the notion of self-determination which freedom itself is based on. And anyone who wants to promote such a non-freedom view certainly would have less than honest intentions in keeping people from acting for themselves.
So who do I believe, the person lying to promote freedom, or the person lying to keep people from acting for themselves?
And I'm not saying that PFOX is lying, by the way, when he (as I quote) relays his own experience in the matter.
I could quote DL Foster, and a number of others.
I could also prove what he says about harassment just by pointing to ex-gay-watch, a site devoted to nothing but harrassment of ex-gays. That harassment is the very kind of activity that the formerconservative says is abuse, but not abuse when gays do it, again showing his bigotry in the matter.
I'll let them defend your accusations of "unscientific" for themselves. My point on that is superfluous.
I support exactly what I said above, the free will and choice of people to live the lifestyle they want to. And I support therapy that supports making those decisions more cognitive rather than instictive.
I know that therapy exists. I'm not saying all ex-gay therapy is that, but I know that much of it is.
So you pointing out bad examples, (or in your case you didn't do that you just presented quibbling over statistical claims) doesn't disprove the whole.
formerconservative: > I will not be back because this conversation has proven to be futile.
ReplyDeleteAren't you the one who wrote about "Confessions of a blog addict" about Family Scholars blog?
As I recall, even the people you claimed were reasonable in that essay distanced themselves from your writing as "factually challenged" and such.
I don't think that any amount of factual problems you present will really have much impact here. Neither will many of the fallacies you conject, or bullying and derision you add to it.
In short, you are one of a large group of internet writers who don't seem to raise to the level of understanding what you are writing against, or even what you are writing yourself. So much so that you find yourself in the inconsistencies of deriding ex-gays for choosing to not be gay anymore, but loving Islam which would kill people to keep them from being homosexual anymore. You are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Its the kind of misunderstanding which will have you celebrate and echo and personally involve yourself in the harassment and abuse given by people deriding ex-gays, even after calling such behavior abuse.
It is the kind of misunderstanding which causes you to claim things about PW which are directly contrary to what he actually wrote. As you said before, if you are too lazy to read what you are replying too... you know the rest.
So as far as your points on the table...
a) Your inability to admit that there are possible good reasons, and inability to comment on the possible reasons presented, is your own failure ... not ours.
b) I'm talking about a body of therapy as a whole. Not all therapists use the same methods, and not all methods work for everyone. I know people that I'd call bad psychologists, and some that I consider to be great at what they do. And oddly enough, I know people who think the ones I think are quacks are good, and the ones I think are good they think are quacks. Unfortunately it isn't a precise science, it is a practice. I see no reason to discredit the body of therapy because of what you claim about a subset's practices.
To be honest, if your readership were more able to understand facts and reason (like the people you considered reasonable at FSB, if that was your authorship) they'd be able to see how factually challenged you are. Your readership is likely not any better at it then you are. I'm not likely to go there for insight into something that is already a fallacy.
c) This is just an instance where you didn't read PW's words on the subject, which were already presented, "I fully support the rights that allow a person to share his life with someone of the same sex."
You are simply claiming he is against a right that he isn't against. A homosexual couple can have a wedding, and live together, and to them it is a marriage. We don't outlaw such arrangements, we even support recognizing them with benefits through "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" or "Reciprocal Beneficiaries".
So where do you presume that such a liberty is not endorsed by PW? I don't know. But then again, that is one of the reasons your writing is seen as factually challenged so often.
former: > Now On Lawn has gone over into the area of Islam-bashing and has made up his own definition of the word bigotry.
ReplyDeleteLet me help make that sentence more factual...
PW and On Lawn have pointed out a glaring inconsistency in what formerconservative writes about Islamophobia and homophobia. And On Lawn has pointed out that when you say a good action is bad because of prejudice against that person, and that a bad action is good because of a prejudice in favor of that person, that is an example of bigotry.
There, writing in a way that is factually accurate isn't so hard is it?
formerconservative: > I can't continue in an argument that ignores facts, makes up it's own defintion of words, and engages in more false dichotomies than I've ever seen.
As usual, what you claim as facts did not turn out to be facts. And the impact you suggest these overstated facts should have were non-sequitor even if they were true.
Its your failure for putting such emphasis on arguments which were factually challenged, and fallaciously applied to boot.
About the definition, can you tell me honestly that you have not displayed bigotry (as in it is okay for people you like to do bad things, but not people you don't like to do good things)?
Do you simply think that isn't bigotry when people do that?
Because if you really want to be factual (and I've not seen evidence yet that you actually do) what I presented is called an example, and was never presented as a definition. Examples are provided in the dictionary, but that doesn't make them definitions. I hope that helps clear that up for you.
And on false dichotomies, what I think is funny is that a dichotomy is an either or situation. The fallacy is that usually there are more possibilities then just two.
Perhaps you can show me where I overly constrained a question to just two possibilities.
But, without knowing for sure, it seems that you might be the first person I've argued with that calls a dichotomy false because it presents too many possibilities.
For example, you present the absolute statement that there are no good reasons for someone to want to live a heterosexual lifestyle if they are gay. There is no other possibility, just one.
There are many such possibilities, and if you think that notion is false because you only see one possibility, then again it is your failure to recognize the possibilities, not mine.
So I guess in short, what you intend may be exactly opposite of what you wrote. It seems you fully intend to persist in factual errors, and narrow/small minded arguments.
I would hope that if I read the comments on your site that they would be more intelligent then what you have presented here. However, my experience has been typically that small-mindedness like yours is supported in groups who want to persist in the same small mindedness. They are like the carion flies, or the blind who don't know they are being led by the blind.
If they want to expand their horizons they are welcome to meet us directly at our site. Heaven knows you need the help (rather than their consoling your failure here).
If they have anything relevent they are welcome to present it here and prove me wrong.
For anyone reading this, feel free to show where former was right, and we were wrong. Show it right here for our whole readership to know that we were wrong and Former was right.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any aruments made by former that wound up discrediting anything PW said. If you think Former did a good job here, you'd naturally want to present such arguments right?
If you don't or can't, then I understand. Keep your arguments away from scrutiny where they are safe, talk between yourselves and convince yourselves you are right. That is the best way to keep believing what you want to believe. But it is not the best way to rise above your own bigotry and prejudice.
Because where I sit, it is easy to show that Former's views are far more narrow minded then ours, factually challenged to the point of being irrelevant, and fallaciously applied.
I said that I wasn't going to argue with you anymore and I'm not, not because I can't or because you've got me over a rope, but doing so isn't going to change anyone's mind, because you are too closeminded to listen to anyone and will just continue to do your astounding feats of mental gymnastics in an effort to avoid actually listening to what any of us are saying.
ReplyDeleteHowever when you ask:
"Aren't you the one who wrote about 'Confessions of a blog addict' about Family Scholars blog?"
I am not that person and I have never heard of that blog, nor have I ever heard of the Family Scholars blog. I would appreciate it if you would not assume that I am the same person as someone else just because we have similiar blog titles and both disagree with you. I would like to not be held accountable for something some other person said.
former: > I said that I wasn't going to argue with you anymore and I'm not, not because I can't or because you've got me over a rope
ReplyDeleteHow convenient. Is there no difference between leaving because you want to protect beliefs from scrutiny (meaning you are closed minded) and claiming that the other people are closed minded?
At some level they look exactly the same to me.
But since your arguments require there to be no good reason for a gay to live a heterosexual lifestyle, and you seem unable to cope or even respond to such presentations, it would appear that you are the one who is closed minded.
Since you are the one who has been abusive in your discourse here, I'll also have to say that would indicate you are the closed minded bigot here.
Examples...
* " ... you are too damn lazy to read ..."
* "... your little rebuttal makes me reticent to respond your replies ..."
* The very title accused PW of emotional abuse, when he never endorsed any emotional abuse. In other words, you simply spread lies about someone.
* "... that's [something that was another formerconservative false accsuation] not going to do anything but make you look like a jerk ..."
Its good to know you aren't the same person. The similarities are there, the "confessions of a former" title, the factually challenged presentation, the overstated fallacies, etc... I'll concede that simply there are two of you who suffer from the same problematic style who wrote at about the same time.
You know, every time someone comes out as "ex-gay," it reinforces the idea that you can "cure" a sexual orientation. You never see people trying to "cure" heterosexuality. This gives the impressions that 1) if these gay people changed, so can all gay people, 2) heterosexuality is more "healthy" than homosexuality, and 3) therefore, everyone should be heterosexual, and people who aren't should become that way. So I can see why gay rights activists aren't wild about ex-gay programs.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to relationships: If my hypothetical partner and I have agreed that we're going to be monogamous, then he has the right to ask me to perform sex acts that don't turn me on; I have the right to either do them for him or refuse; if I refuse, he has the right to decide for himself whether my company's more important than these particular sex acts, and either go without them or leave me; I have the right to give him permission to do them with someone else as long as he stays with me; and so on. I don't think anybody owes me love.
emily: > you can "cure" a sexual orientation
ReplyDeleteYou put "cure" in quotes but no one here has presented it that way. The word here has been "choice", and not a choice of orientation but a choice of lifestyle.
To claim there is no choice is anti-freedom, and a stance I don't support.
And that is the main difference I can see here. Some see it as sickness vs cure, and are agressively attacking or defending it.
I don't see playful as portraying it that way, and I don't either. For us it is natural behavior vs choice, and that fits in a much larger segment of people who want to be more proactive and congnitive of the lifestyle they have in lieu of personal challenges they might have to be there.
So in that light one would rewrite what you presented as follows...
"This gives the impressions that 1) if these gay people [choose], so can all gay people [choose]". And there is nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean they have to. As Playful stated, "I do not think that the ability for one person to change mandates that all others change."
Too bad I missed this one. On Lawn did his usual admirable and thorough job of addressing the points raised, but I thought it was worth a summary:
ReplyDeleteFormer's argument can be summed up as the argument from silence. He doesn't see why anyone needs a particular freedom, therefore it should be taken away. This is more specifically the argument from ignorance, it depends on Former's inability to see.
On Lawn gives one example of a reason someone might want to exercise this freedom, but Former simply ignores it. Perhaps he really "can't see" it.
Even if his ignorance were as universal as he claims it to be, even if nobody else could see a reason for the freedom to seek therapy, that is still not sufficient reason to take freedom away.
This Emily person's argument can be summed up as: if it feels good it must be true. More specifically, if it makes (Emily feel like) someone else feel good then it must be true and if it makes someone else feel bad then it must be false. If "ex-gays" exist, then "gays" feel bad, therefore, poof, "ex-gays" disappear. If "gays" are "born-that-way" like Native Americans (she ignores the inherent racism in her analogy) that makes them feel better, therefore it must be true.
Emily's is an absurdly irrational argument and needs no further comment, but even if truth were established by what how someone else might feel, I doubt seriously if Emily has researched which group feels better, "gays" or "ex-gays."
On Lawn in fact presents a statement by an "ex-gay" person who claims that he is pressured to change more as an "ex-gay" than he ever was as a "gay," opposite Emily's claim. To drive home the quoted point, some Hydra troll, probably also from Former's blog, shows up to shame and hector the "ex-gay" man just as the "ex-gay" man said he was experiencing. Funny that Hydra probably thought he was weakening PFOX's case rather than providing evidence strengthening it.
Emily and Former both returned, presumably to bolster their arguments but instead simply reiterated their fallacies without improving or justifying their reasoning. Former, at least, then realizes he has nothing more to offer and exits, at least for the time being.
I don't intend to join in this conversation, but I do hope that if Emily or Former choose to continue, that they come up with a more rational reason to believe as they do.
I think PW and formerconservative have been talking past one another on one particular point, and that's messing up the whole discussion.
ReplyDeleteFC wrote an article that might be summed up thus: "There's no good reason for a gay to seek out therapy in order to live a heterosexual lifestyle, because such therapy has been discredited by a number of professionals and people are often bullied into it, directly or subtly."
PW then latched onto the first part: "There's no good reason for a gay to seek out therapy in order to live a heterosexual lifestyle", pointed out that this isn't true, and therefore concluded that FC is against freedom of choice.
Now, the point I think FC was trying to make was not that there's no reason *at all* for gays to seek therapy, but that there's no reason for gays *to be coerced, persuaded, deceived, bullied, or otherwise forced* into seeking therapy. Just because not everyone is coerced doesn't mean that when people *are* bullied and coerced and shamed into thinking they need a "cure", we should just hand-wave it away. When a few people complain about ex-gay therapy not working, that maybe can be shrugged off as "oh, they just had a bad experience". When more than half claim it doesn't work, and most of these claim to have experienced actual psychological harm...yeah, then you might need to take another look at the therapy. When 10 out of 100 people misunderstand a set of directions, that's user error. When 90 out of 100 people misunderstand, that's bad directions.
This whole argument hinges on freedom, right? PW is advocating for the freedom of individuals to seek out whatever sort of help they want for whatever reason they want. Okay, great. How is allowing homosexuals the right to marry whom they love going to change or obstruct this freedom? How is closing down clinics that have a track record of harming people going to take away a person's right to certain kinds of therapy? If I discovered that my child's doctor had a history of malpractice, I would want him out of business, regardless of whether or not he hurt my child personally.
Gay rights as a whole is not an individual issue...it is a state issue, a federal issue, a societal issue. As such, there will always be exceptions to any law or policy created, because no two people are alike. This ambiguity at the individual level does not negate or disprove the need for those societal laws and policies to exist. LGBT people should have the right to marry whom they love, AND they should have the right to seek help if they'd rather be in a straight relationship. Putting the former into law is not going to affect the latter *any more than it already does*.
Again, if we frame this debate in terms of choice, LGBT people have fewer and less desirable choices than straight people, for no other reason than their orientation.
ReplyDeleteA straight person may choose to seek out a relationship with someone to whom they are attracted: ie, the opposite sex. They can marry that person with the approval and sanction of the state. They may choose to forgo marriage in favor of a more casual or open relationship. They may also choose a life of celibacy. In most states, however, they may not choose to marry a person of the same sex whom they aren't attracted to anyway.
A homosexual person can choose to seek out a relationship with someone whom they are attracted to: someone of the same sex. In most states, however, they cannot marry that person. They may choose to forgo marriage in favor of a more casual or open relationship, and they may choose to live as though they were married...but they cannot choose to marry. They can, however, still choose a life of celibacy. They can also choose to marry someone of the opposite sex whom they aren't attracted to anyway.
Yes, people can choose to leave the "homosexual lifestyle"...it's called being celibate, repressing your feelings, or living a lie. None of these options are very healthy when they are your ONLY options besides having that relationship with the person you are attracted to. Nobody HAS to act when they feel that stirring towards a certain someone...and no gay advocates that I know of are claiming that LGBT people should *always* act on those feelings. Straight people don't always act on those feelings. The difference is, straight people CAN act on those feelings without fear of condemnation from the state. This is a choice that LGBT people do not yet have.
Gay advocates are trying to give LGBT people the FREEDOM to choose marriage to the person they love, if they wish. Nobody is trying to take away people's freedom to make other relationship choices. It's a matter of encouraging people to be true to their feelings, free from the atmosphere of coercion that all too often accompanies ex-gay therapy.
Amaranth: I think PW and formerconservative have been talking past one another...there's no reason for gays *to be coerced, persuaded, deceived, bullied, or otherwise forced*
ReplyDeleteIt is ridiculous to claim former was really here discussing bullying. He had nothing to say, for example, when someone from his own blog came in to bully the "ex-gay" commenter. He wouldn't be trying to bring up efficacy if he were really here just discussing bullying. Amaranth may wish that was what Former was here discussing, but it clearly wasn't.
I don't see Amaranth speaking out against Hydra's bullying, either.
Again, if we frame this debate in terms of choice, LGBT people have fewer and less desirable choices than straight people...
Baloney. "LGBT people" have the same choices as everyone else. This is just a naked appeal to identity politics.
A straight person may choose to seek out a relationship with someone to whom they are attracted...
So can anyone else.
They can marry that person with the approval and sanction of the state.
Not the function of government. Basically, if you're living your life looking to government as the source of all "approval and sanction," you need to reexamine what you're doing. Government licenses all kinds of activities not worthy of approval and doesn't license all kinds of activities that are. If you only do things that require government licensing hoping to get that big-governmental "approval"-in-the-sky then not only will you lead an incredibly empty life but you'll also wind up sadly disappointed when you still don't feel that cozy warm "approval" you were after.
Government doesn't license something as a stamp of approval, but rather to regulate it. Government licenses car driving, for example, but not bicycle riding. It's not because government needs to withhold its "approval and sanction" from bicycle riders, but because it doesn't have the same need to regulate driving bicycles as it does driving automobiles.
Gay advocates are trying to give LGBT people the FREEDOM to choose marriage...
Nonsense. "LGBT people" are free to marry someone or to go find some other type of relationship that makes them happy.
Nobody is trying to take away people's freedom to make other relationship choices.
Wrong. What advocates of neutering marriage are trying to do is limit freedom. They don't want anyone to choose a relationship tailored to procreation, period. A generation ago these same people wanted to do away with marriage entirely for exactly the same reason.
It's a matter of encouraging people to be true to their feelings, free from the atmosphere of coercion that all too often accompanies [weight loss] therapy.
OK, Amaranth didn't really say "weight loss" there, but what she said was just as meaningless. The point is, there's lots of therapies out there for lots of conditions. Many people are unsuccessful trying a lot of these therapies and they are free to keep trying, to look for a more effective therapy, or to just give up and "be true to their feelings." If you don't think that's relevant you need to look up the word "coercion."
"If you only do things that require government licensing hoping to get that big-governmental "approval"-in-the-sky then not only will you lead an incredibly empty life but you'll also wind up sadly disappointed when you still don't feel that cozy warm "approval" you were after."
ReplyDeleteUm, what? Approval and sanction of the government in marriage isn't some "pie in the sky" BS. It's about being able to file joint taxes. It's about being able to visit your spouse in the hospital and make medical decisions for them, if need be. It's about being able to include your spouse on your health insurance. It's about not being kicked out of the military for accidentally letting slip that your spouse is, *ghasp* the same sex as you. It's about being able to adopt children who need a home. It's about those children being able to claim both of those parents AS parents without shame and harrassment. It's about not getting fired from the only job you can find just because you're gay. It's about being able to leave your property to your spouse without undue hassle when you die.
Where on earth did you get the impression that LGBT people want the government to recognize their marriages just because they want to FEEL GOOD about themselves??
"They don't want anyone to choose a relationship tailored to procreation, period. A generation ago these same people wanted to do away with marriage entirely for exactly the same reason."
I'm confused. Who are "these people" who want everyone to stop procreating? And how exactly are these activists going to *stop* people from forming relationships geared towards procreation? What laws and policies have they suggested be implemented that would force people to stop having children, or outlaw relationships that produce children? The world isn't going to spontaneously stop having children just because gay people can suddenly get married. People are still reproducing in the Netherlands, in Massachusetts, and I'm pretty sure New Yorkers are going to keep having kids.
Marriage may include procreation, but for most people, it is not ABOUT procreation...and unless you want to argue that people who can't or don't want to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry, then I'm not sure how the subject of procreation is even relevant to the discussion of whether LGBT people ought to be allowed to legally marry the person whom they are attracted to.
On the weight loss thing: see, it's pretty well documented and established that people can actually lose weight. Whereas being able to change a sexual orientation...not so much. With weight loss, yeah, there's definite societal pressure to be thin...but in that case, it's a matter of choosing therapy that actually has a chance of working, or choosing to give up/not pursue said therapy and being content with one's weight. With gay therapy, it's a matter of choosing therapy that hasn't been proven to work in most cases and had actually caused harm in cases, verses forgoing said therapy and just...letting yourself be attracted to someone.
ReplyDeleteA weight loss therapist who claims he/she can help you lose weight; that's credible. A weight loss therapist who claims he/she can guarantee that you'll never gain another pound and never want to overeat again? I don't think so. Coercion is not the issue here; truth is. If more gay therapists would be honest and admit that they can only really help people suppress unwanted attractions, rather than claiming to be able to "fix" or "cure" said attractions, I'd personally be less suspicious of the whole business.
Amaranth: It's about being able to file joint taxes
ReplyDeleteThat's tax law, not marriage law. Corporations and trusts file "joint" returns, for example.
It's about being able to visit your spouse in the hospital and make medical decisions for them
Not part of marriage law. Hospitals develop their own policies on who visits whom and no, spouses don't get carte-blanche access. For health decisions, see advance directives and yes, even married people need them.
It's about being able to include your spouse on your health insurance.
Health insurance is a private enterprise. Insurers are free to decide what kinds of policies they offer. Amaranth is at least 30 years behind if she thinks a same-sex domestic partner can't be covered on an insurance policy.
It's about not being kicked out of the military for accidentally letting slip that your spouse is, *ghasp* the same sex as you.
Also not part of marriage law. Whatever you think about "don't ask, don't tell," you can't think it's part of marriage law. If you don't like that policy, change it. Redefining marriage won't change it.
It's about being able to adopt children who need a home.
Adoption law is not marriage law. Unmarried people can already adopt.
It's about those children being able to claim both of those parents AS parents without shame and harrassment.
"Shame and harrassment" [sic] aren't part of marriage law anywhere. However laudable the goal of ending "Shame and harrassment," turning such a task over to government would result in enormous erosion of such rights as freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.
It's about not getting fired from the only job you can find just because you're gay.
Employment law, not marriage law.
It's about being able to leave your property to your spouse without undue hassle when you die.
Inheritance law, not marriage law. It's called a will and yes, even married people need them.
So let's recap. Amaranth lists nine problems she'd like to solve. Out of those nine, zero are solved by redefining marriage. Amaranth can now either seek actual solutions to these problems, or else seek actual problems for her chosen solution, neutering marriage. Anyone want to place bets on which she'll do?
Where on earth did you get the impression that LGBT people want the government to recognize their marriages just because they want to FEEL GOOD about themselves??
ReplyDeleteAmaranth is the one who invented this whole "approval and sanction of the state" notion. (Hint: Use the find function of your browser to see where this first occurs in the comment trail.) She may wish now that she hadn't, but the comment trail is here.
I'm confused. Who are "these people" who want everyone to stop procreating?
Confused indeed since nobody but she is talking about "people who want everyone to stop procreating." (Again, use your browser's find.) Perhaps when one is confused one is better advised to reread and comprehend rather than simply fly off the handle.
I'll take Amaranth at her word that she truly was confused and is not simply feigning poor reading skills to avoid a refutation for which she has no response. I'll trust that she will now go back and reread and write an appropriate response.
...unless you want to argue that people who can't or don't want to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry...
How does Amaranth propose the government implement such restrictions? Such a policy would require a grossly invasive and intrusive government to enforce. This is simply the standard "scorched earth" ploy by marriage neuterers. If they can't have marriage they want it to be so onerous that nobody else would want it, either. I'll just note that either option of Amaranth's false dichotomy accomplishes the same goal of eliminating the choice of a fundamentally procreative union.
LGBT people ought to be allowed to legally marry the person whom they are attracted to.
Amaranth is batting a perfect 1000 on the subject of marriage law. "Attracted to" isn't part of marriage law anywhere. Simply being attracted to somebody doesn't create a right to marry that someone. Being attracted to one's cousin, for example, doesn't create a right to marry that cousin. A married individual who is attracted to someone outside that marriage doesn't have a right to marry that someone, whatever the married person thinks of their current spouse. In fact, letting oneself be dragged around by one's current feelings of attraction is more in line with the "free love" movement of the 60s than with marriage.
While I disagree with Amaranth's approach to marriage, I neglected to commend Amaranth for not trying to defend her attempted recharacterization of Former's comments as just being about anti-bullying. That's an important step and I neglected to give Amaranth credit for it. My apologies.
ReplyDeleteThe California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) was recently asked to recommend an ethical ban on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE). The CAMFT board decided NOT to approve the ban:
ReplyDeleteSUMMARY OF THE CAMFT BOARD AND ETHICS COMMITTEE’S CONSIDERATIONS AND ULTIMATE DECISION NOT TO ADOPT THE ETHICS BAN ON SOCE:
The board and committee reviewed this proposal to accomplish the following:
1. “Determine how the Proposal coincides with or goes beyond what the American Psychological Association (APA-1) has passed.
[APA-1 refers to: APA 2009 Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf).]
2. Determine if it is within CAMFT’s purview to make statements on theoretical orientations.
3. Determine from a survey of the existing codes of ethics and research what other entities have concluded.
4. Review the existing Code of Ethics to see what sections might relate to this issue if there was a complaint.
5. Review the various requests received from all stakeholders and make recommendations for the Board’s consideration.”
The Ethics Committee considered the following:
“Stakeholders have expressed conflicting views regarding the legitimacy or efficacy of therapies focused on SOCE. Rather than focus on the concept of a particular form of therapy, the Committee recommends that the most effective approach is to ensure that the Code of Ethics provides the basis for the evaluation and determination of ethical conduct in all cases. The CAMFT Code of Ethics must contain adequate standards so that more guidance and notice is given to practitioners, so that patients receive ethical services, and for the Committee to take action, if warranted. Our profession is both an art and a science and is continuously evolving. The Committee recommends strengthening the CAMFT Code of Ethics and believes declaring a particular form of therapy unethical per se sets a dangerous precedent.”
“The Committee identified the main components necessary to protect patients and guide professionals in this area of practice. Therapists should obtain appropriate informed consent that respects patient autonomy and discloses a therapist’s values and beliefs whenever such values and beliefs substantially influence his or her practice decisions. Therapists should also examine their own values, ideas, and beliefs and should not exert undue influence on patients. Therapists are expected to recognize and avoid the perpetuation of historical and social prejudices because such conduct may lead to misdiagnosing and pathologizing patients.”
(Continued from above):
ReplyDeleteThe Ethics Committee recommended the adoption of the following new or adjusted ethical standards of practice, which the board tentatively adopted and will finalize as CAMFT ethical standards of practice within the new couple of months after membership review. It is possible that changes could be made, but it is highly unlikely significant changes will be made that may negatively impact reorientation practices or therapists.
“1.1.1 Marriage and family therapists are aware of and do not perpetuate historical and social prejudices when diagnosing and treating patients because such conduct may lead to misdiagnosing and pathologizing patients.
Marriage and family therapists respect the right of patients to choose whether to enter into or remain in a therapeutic relationship.
1.5.1 RISKS AND BENEFITS: Marriage and family therapists inform patients of the potential risks and benefits of therapy when utilizing novel or experimental techniques or when there is a risk of physical harm that could result from the utilization of any technique.
1.6 EXPLOITATION: Marriage and family therapists do not use their professional relationships with patients to further their own interests and do not exert undue influence on patients.
3.7 THERAPIST VALUES: Marriage and family therapists make continuous efforts to be aware of how their cultural/racial/ethnic identities, values, and beliefs affect the process of therapy. Marriage and family therapists do not exert undue influence on the choice of treatment or outcomes based on such identities, values, and beliefs.
3.9 SCOPE OF COMPETENCE: Marriage and family therapists take care to provide proper diagnoses of mental and emotional disorders or conditions and do not assess, test, diagnose, treat, or advise on problems beyond the level of their competence as determined by their education, training, and experience. While developing new areas of practice, marriage and family therapists take steps to ensure the competence of their work through education, training, consultation, and/or supervision.
PATIENT CHOICES: Marriage and family therapists respect patient choices and work jointly with patients to develop and review treatment plans that are consistent with patients’ goals and that offer a reasonable likelihood of success.
DISCLOSURE: Where a marriage and family therapist’s personal values, attitudes, and/or beliefs are a substantial factor in the diagnosis and treatment provided to a client, the marriage and family therapist shall disclose such information to the patient.”
In short, the CAMFT Board, on the recommendation of the Ethics Committee has resolved the following:
1. The CAMFT does not support a declaration that the practice of SOCE be unethical, nor does it ban said practice.
2. NO THERAPIST ethically may unduly attempt to influence clients who believe they will benefit from therapies which are congruent with the clients’ personal values by attempting to convince them otherwise.
3. Clients’ right to autonomy must be respected, no matter what their position is on sexual orientation.
4. Therapists who practice SOCE must respect the rights of gay clients to receive gay affirmative therapy, AND gay affirmative therapists must respect the rights clients with unwanted SSA to receive SOCE.
So, in essence, those who believe that sexual orientation change therapy should be banned can take it up with CAMFT, as well as other professional organizations whom have repeatedly voted not to ban it, in spite of years of lobbying and pressure to do so by LGBT activists, and in spite of the fact that such lobbying and pressure has been effective in relation to other questions.
ReplyDeleteOp-ed. So you're saying that since tax law, employment law, adoption policies, hospital policies, health insurance policies, military policies, and inheritance laws are all completely separate issues and one's legal relationship to one's spouse has absolutely NO BEARING on them, I am to be belittled for even bringing up such issues in a conversation about why people get married.
ReplyDeleteSeriously? The point is that where same-sex couples even have access to these benefits, they are usually more difficult to come by and require jumping through more hoops. No, legal sanction of same-sex marriages by the government won't stop discrimination altogether, but you seem to be implying that it won't help at all (because all those things are *completely unconnected* to marriage law, doncha know!) and therefore LGBT people must have some other agenda for wanting to get married.
"How does Amaranth propose the government implement such restrictions? Such a policy would require a grossly invasive and intrusive government to enforce."
I was agreeing with you when I said that. The government cannot and should not have the power to restrict those kinds of relationships. On one hand, you're saying that the government doesn't have the power to stop people from forming "fundamentally procreative unions". I agree, it doesn't, and that's as it should be. On the other hand, you seem to be afraid that gay advocates are going to gain enough sway to allow the government to do just that. Which is it?
"If they can't have marriage they want it to be so onerous that nobody else would want it, either."
Oh, I get it. If marriage equality advocates get their way and LGBT people get to marry, everyone else will be SO DISGUSTED with the whole institution that they'll abandon it wholesale. Because if GAYZ can get married, nobody else will want to.
Again, I'd invite you to take a look at the situation in countries and states where same-sex marriage is legal and has been for a number of years. Has this happened? Have straight people stopped getting married because they can't bear to share the institution of marriage with gay people? My marriage to my husband does not cease to mean anything just because Bob and Joe down the street can also get married.
""Attracted to" isn't part of marriage law anywhere. Simply being attracted to somebody doesn't create a right to marry that someone."
Are you married? Do you know people who are married? What's the main reason people GET married today, if it's not "I find this person sexually, emotionally, and physically attractive, and I want to spend the rest of my life with this someone"? It boggles me how opponents of marriage equality try to play down attraction and love as though they have no part in the conversation. As though LGBT people are sentimental fools for imagining that marriage can be about sharing your life with someone you find attractive. "Why are gay people complaining? They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else!" is a quip I hear a lot, and that people don't see the callousness of it saddens me. "You can marry...just not anyone who you might find attractive!" Straight people can marry for love. Gay people cannot. Marriage equality opponents want to keep it that way. So...who's trying to use the government to limit relationships here?
"While I disagree with Amaranth's approach to marriage, I neglected to commend Amaranth for not trying to defend her attempted recharacterization of Former's comments as just being about anti-bullying. That's an important step and I neglected to give Amaranth credit for it. My apologies."
ReplyDeleteAside from the passive-aggressive mockery in this post, which is completely unnecessary, I didn't address this point because I read FC's original article, where it was made abundantly clear that his biggest problems with gay therapy was that people are often coerced into it, and that changing one's orientation is not something most credible scientists believe to be possible.
In other words, I didn't think I needed to.
Amaranth: > Coercion is not the issue here; truth is.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you brought that up. But as a matter of course, lets revisit how we got to that point.
PW wrote about, "If someone asks for help and wants help in changing their actions or feelings, they can find help for just about any behavior or feelings – but for what I can only think are reasons tied to identity politics and groupthink, someone asking for help in dealing with same-sex attraction in any other way than engaging in homosexual behavior is attacked and anyone who tries to help is attacked."
There is emotional abuse involved, and PW is hilighting it and denouncing it. Yet FormerConservative accuses PW of endorsing emotional abuse. This is important because this clears up an issue you raised in a previous post, that they are talking in orthogonal paths, "Now, the point I think FC was trying to make was not that there's no reason *at all* for gays to seek therapy, but that there's no reason for gays *to be coerced, persuaded, deceived, bullied, or otherwise forced* into seeking therapy."
Since PW's point was never endorsing coersion, deseption, bullying, or other force, it makes sense that FormerConservative is the one taking off on an orthogonal path to make such an accusation. It is on that point that I lay as evidence that FC is out to emotionally abuse, decieve, etc... since he never took the time to understand where PW was actually coming from. His warning for caution in finding therapy is warranted, but his accusation and broad painting with a brush was absolutely spurrious.
FC's point was very much about coersion, it was very much about "there's no reason *at all* for gays to seek therapy". Or as FC said it himself, "Why else would go through a long process of 'therapy' unless they were shamed into believing that the way they currently were was unhealthy and abnormal? If you can provide me with a legitimate reason someone would have to do such a thing, this would be the time to do so. I'm guessing that you can't. The burden of proof is on you since the vast majority of the world thinks this 'assistance' is harmful and abusive."
FC demanded proof in the form of reasons that might exist to disprove his own point about coersion. And when presented with such reasons, he never did concede the point. Ultimately when presented with the evidence that there exists perfectly upright reasons and methods, he complained he would never be able to convince us otherwise. Well, that is true. When there is good evidence that FC is over-reaching and focusing on a narrow subset as if it represents the whole of therapy, it is unlikely that his line of arguementation would persuade anyone.
Its the failure of his argument, nothing less.
But there is a lingering expectation that we should be persuaded by something. I think FC mentioned it when he discussed for arguments sake that such a reason might exist. But I think you put it more succinctly, "If more gay therapists would be honest and admit that they can only really help people suppress unwanted attractions, rather than claiming to be able to 'fix' or 'cure' said attractions, I'd personally be less suspicious of the whole business."
I won't argue what you find credible or not, because I find that reasonable enough. But I'll give this suggestion, perhaps if you want that to happen more you need to accept when it happens (such as in this discussion with PW, and others at Opine) and support it. That would draw out the outcome you are looking for far more than assuming anyone on the topic is saying the same thing.
Amaranth: ...are all completely separate issues and one's legal relationship to one's spouse has absolutely NO BEARING on them,...
ReplyDeleteHow a particular policy or law takes the current definition of marriage into account has "NO BEARING" on Amaranth's position since her position is that marriage should be redefined, not left the same.
I am to be belittled for even bringing up such issues...
To be wrong is different than to be belittled. Nobody likes to be wrong, but one is simply trying to silence the opposition when one tries to assign negative labels to legitimate responses.
... in a conversation about why people get married.
If somebody has ever decided to get married because they thought that was easier than writing a will, for example, I have yet to meet such a person. If I did, I likely would advise them they were wrong. In any case, certainly the majority of people who get married aren't thinking of inheritance law, etc., so yes, Amaranth is wrong for "bringing up such issues in a conversation about why people get married."
Seriously?
No. Actually, I doubt Amaranth took her own strawman any more seriously than I did. This looks more to me like Amaranth pretending away a refutation she has no answer for by feigning she misunderstood it. It is an illegitimate attempt to justify continuing to talk without having to talk about the actual issues raised.
The point is that where same-sex couples even have access to these benefits, they are usually more difficult to come by and require jumping through more hoops.
As opposed to "more difficult to come by" without "jumping through more hoops." Not only is Amaranth being needlessly redundant, she is repeating herself.
If "jumping through more hoops" is the problem one wishes to solve, then solve it. Don't redefine marriage. The only reason to redefine marriage is to eliminate it in its current form. Somehow we have managed to reduce paperwork over time without ever redefining marriage to do it.
...but you seem to be implying that it won't help at all...
"seem to be implying" are weasel words that mean even Amaranth knows I am not saying what she is about to put forward.
Whether or not dropping a nuclear bomb on one's house would "help at all" unclogging a sink doesn't make it a good solution to that problem.
I'm sorry Amaranth, I'm getting dizzy watching you peddle back and forth on the coersion thing...
ReplyDelete"Coercion is not the issue here; truth is."
"[...] I read FC's original article, where it was made abundantly clear that his biggest problems with gay therapy was that people are often coerced into it [...]"
And you are neglecting the point that his real thrust was to accuse PW of endorsing emotional abuse when it is clear that he does not.
On the marriage issue you are accusing Op-Ed of passive-aggressive mockery, when all he's saying is that neutering marriage is as good a solution for benefiting same-sex marriage as setting off explosives to remove a clog in your kitchen sink.
He's done a good job of explaining how the solution is overbearing, how it removes our choice to be a part of a fundamentally procreation institution, and only indirectly affects same-sex couples (and I'll add then only homosexual same-sex couples when there are many committed loving platonic same-sex couples raising children together also).
I can understand the scrutiny is uncomfortable, but the analysis is accurate and honest.
Amaranth: I was agreeing with you when I said that.
ReplyDeleteHere's what Amaranth said originally:
"Marriage may include procreation, but for most people, it is not ABOUT procreation..."
That very clearly is not "agreeing with [me]."
Some books are never read. That doesn't mean books aren't made to be read. Whether or not everyone who marries procreates or intends to, we have marriage because we have procreation.
There are lots of other institutions that are fundamentally not procreative. There is only one, marriage, that fundamentally is. Amaranth would have us believe we don't even have that one. It is Amaranth's intent to ensure we have no institutions tailored to the unique needs of procreation. That is destructive and coercive.
On one hand, you're saying that the government doesn't have the power to stop people from forming "fundamentally procreative unions".
No, I'm not.
On the other hand, you seem to be afraid that gay advocates are going to gain enough sway to allow the government to do just that.
Wrong again. At least this time Amaranth had the decency to throw in the "seem to be" weasel phrase before pinning her strawman on me.
What I am saying is that Amaranth and other activists attempting to neuter marriage are trying to eliminate marriage, the only institution we have that is recognized by its procreativity. They offer to put something else in its stead, but by then the damage is already done.
If marriage equality advocates get their way and LGBT people get to marry, everyone else will be SO DISGUSTED with the whole institution that they'll abandon it wholesale.
Clearly Amaranth doesn't "get it" as I never talked about anyone being disgusted with anything. (Browser search function, again.) Once again, I doubt she even takes her own words seriously here.
Do you know people who are married?
Yes, I do, and those that choose to end their marriage because they are now "attracted to" someone else are not admired.
What's the main reason people GET married today...
At one point Amaranth claimed it was because they wanted government benefits and wanted a way around "don't ask don't tell." I commend her for changing that earlier position.
"You can marry...just not anyone who you might find attractive!"
That is a standard lie. In fact, among the people I know who are now happily marred (quo marriage), some claim to be "LGBT people," yet they also claim to be deeply in love with their opposite-sex spouse. Amaranth simply wants to move these people back onto her reservation because that suits her political goals better, not the needs of these "LGBT people."
And back to the original point. Being uninterested in something yourself is no reason to take that away from everyone else.
Aside from the passive-aggressive mockery in this post...
Once again Amaranth seeks to assign ill motives to points she would rather silence.
In other words, I didn't think I needed to.
No, she didn't. But she came here and did that anyway. All the other points she raises, that she had read the original article, blah,blah,blah, were equally true when she wrote:
"Now, the point I think FC was trying to make was not that there's no reason *at all* for gays to seek therapy, but that there's no reason for gays *to be coerced, persuaded, deceived, bullied, or otherwise forced* into seeking therapy."
And also true later when she revoked that position with:
"Coercion is not the issue here; truth is."
Yet she was not silent either of those times.
The problem with many ex-gay ministries is that they are held up as examples of "righteous living" and are therefore used as tools for excluding gay people from church-life, even if the gay person in question is celibate.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem with them is that they are often sold in a misleading manner -- "as a cure to homosexuality" rather than what they are "a method to repress your sexual desires so that you can live the straight life."I think this disingenuous manner in which the ex-gay movement is still presented to church goers (“Look this person can come out of the “death-style” so all those in the pride parade are unrepentant sinners worthy only of your contempt”) feeds the hateful rhetoric against ex-gays and gays alike.
It’s wrong to offhandedly dismiss the scientific findings of "various organizations." Say what you will about ex-gay therapy, it is outside of the approved guidelines of every mainstream medical/psychological organization. Many of these organizations have studied it and find that the harms it may create outweigh any personal benefit to the patient. That is not to say it should be banned, but rather that those that those selling it should provide information to their customers that this therapy could be harmful. It is the therapists' responsibility to properly inform the customer and many ex-gay therapists, a certain Mr. B included, do not provide full disclosure.
I think a lot of the reactionary negative response to ex-gays & ex-gay therapy from the gay community and our allies stem from the above three points: that it is used as tool of exclusion, that it is sold as a cure (and that the notion of a cure is deeply offensive) & that potential harm is masked from the patient before undergoing the therapy.
While it’s easy to view the other-side as “raving lunatics who want to dictate to all people how to live their lives” (not a direct quote) you should understand where their anger comes from before you attempt to critique it. Are we not justified in being pissed off that people delude others into thinking they are unworthy of salvation because they are inclined toward the same-sex and then take advantage of those people by offering therapy which has been shown to be harmful to them under the ruse of curing something which is not curable? At least that's how it looks to those on the other side.
The overarching point, which is clear from reviewing previous commentary posted here, is that this discussion is ahead of its time. It will always be difficult for gay people to accept ex-gay people and ex-gay therapy until gay people are recognized as equal members of society.