Christian psychotherapist caught trying to "cure" homosexuality

[Teddybare]

I couldn't answer that. 'Forever' is beyond my knowledge.

 

I can assume that if there are people now who only wish to have sex with their own gender, then the same was true in the past. Would that be a wrong assumption?

 

 

A few here: Google search

 

New Scientist says:

 

Even if homosexuality does reduce reproductive success, as most people assume, there are plenty of possible reasons why it is so common. For instance, gene variants that cause homosexual behaviour might have other, beneficial effects such as boosting fertility in women, as one recent study suggests, just as the gene variant for sickle-cell anaemia is maintained because it reduces the severity of malaria. Homosexuality could also be a result of females preferring males with certain tendencies - sexual selection can favour traits that reduce overall fitness, such as the peacock's tail

 

 

What do you mean by "worse"?

What are "bad genes", and what makes them "worse"?

 

 

Sexuality isn't absolute, as you've hinted at yourself.

 

I'm not addressing all your other points individually. "Taking one for the team" is a real scientific analysis. Nautre/evolution is cruel to render many people the "last of their line". It's rendered all species to death.

 

 

I'll look into that, but at the minute I'd dispute that it is possible to raise a child to have a seperate sexuality to what would've occured naturally. Have you got any sources to the Fa'afafines?

 

Bad genes I would think would be described as ones causing traits that set the individual at a disadvantage and weren't beneficial to him.

 

Visit Samoa or tonga or Fiji if you want to see for yourself. If a family doesn't have enough daughters to look after the home and the males, they raise the youngest son to be what they consider a third gender, which is in fact a transvestite who only has relationships with men. It's like enforced homosexuality.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa'afafine

 

Now that is down to nurturing to fill an evolutionary gap.

 

If brain shapes and genetic predisposition are to blame then is it hereditary?

 

"Homosexuality could also be a result of females preferring males with certain tendencies - sexual selection can favour traits that reduce overall fitness, such as the peacock's tail"

 

This analogy is simply fabulous

 

Which tendancies would these be?

[Chris_Sleeps]

Visit Samoa or tonga or Fiji if you want to see for yourself. If a family doesn't have enough daughters to look after the home and the males, they raise the youngest son to be what they consider a third gender

I've not seen any writing that states this is so. I can't actually find out how people enter this "third gender". Forcing a playful young boy to stay at home and enjoy cleaning doesn't make sense to me.

 

which is in fact a transvestite who only has relationships with men. It's like enforced homosexuality.

Transvestism is the enjoyment of wearing another gender's clothing. This is a seperate thing, for it seems to be a caste of third-gendered people. I still reject the term 'enforced homosexuality'. If a person has a third gender, then they aren't men who have sex with men. Your own link tells us:

 

It is a mistake to attribute a Western interpretation and mislabel the fa’afafine as “gay” or “homosexual”.

 

It's possibly one of the oddest thing I've ever read about. I'll give you that.

 

If brain shapes and genetic predisposition are to blame then is it hereditary?

If you accept the theory of gay genetics then you could call it herditary, yes. I'd conclude the same thing.

 

"Homosexuality could also be a result of females preferring males with certain tendencies - sexual selection can favour traits that reduce overall fitness, such as the peacock's tail"

 

This analogy is simply fabulous

 

Which tendancies would these be?

In the Peacock, sexual selection favours a bird that has trouble escaping danger due to large tail feathers. If the peacock didn't have such extravagent feathers for display then he would be fitter to escape prey.

 

In homosexuality, you'll have to be a little more specific. I don't understand the question.

[janie48]

If for example we were discussing a Muslim's views on homosexuality, women, paedophilia, etc, then some Christians on here would label all Muslims as homophobic, mysoginistic paedophiles. Therefore, in the instance of fairness and balance, if we're discussing a Christian's views on homosexuality or women priests or child sex abuse by priests then in the eyes of these Christians it would be hypocritical not to tar all Christians with the same brush.

 

"Tarring people with the same brush" is objectionable,to say the least.

If i were to say all Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 twin towers disaster,or all Muslim men were like those gangs who were convicted of raping young vulnerable girls, or all homosexuals were promiscuous, what would that make me? nothing but an ignorant bigot.

[RootsBooster]

The decision would be subconscious so you would be unaware of making the decision, but it still happens in the mind which is why your decision would be psychological.

Greengreeny said he made a CONSCIOUS decision.

I don't either, but I don't see how this counsellor was helping.

[Plain Talker]

Yes; the way it's meant to be (i.e. male to female and vice versa).

 

???? what do you mean, "the way it's meant to be"?

 

What's meant to be, is a consenting adult couple, being able to live their life together without interference from others.

 

It's both. The psychological attraction is first, biologically second.

 

The majority will always be heterosexual. Nature (or God) has created male and female for a reason.

 

Homosexuality is a psychological condition and it will remain so.

 

1)No one is forcing you into a same-sex relationship. As a consenting adult, you are free to love your spouse and live with them without interference from anyone else.

 

2) yes male and female were "created" to procreate, but that doesn't mean:-

 

a) they HAVE to

 

b) they WANT to and

 

c) they need to.

 

As there are so many other straight couples having families, there's no danger of the human race dying out in the forseeable future.

 

3) No, homosexuality is no more psychological than being straight.

[Plain Talker]

Nope. God (or Nature) cannot be held responsible for a condition that isn't the norm. A condition that can be changed.

 

He might be but it doesn't change the fact that homosexuality will always be against what the majority are.

 

You're just trolling. My being Diabetic is not the norm. My having a pacemaker is not the norm. My OH's being left-handed is not the norm...

 

Just because it's not a majority, doesn't make it wrong, per se. Consenting adults, and all that.

 

next?

[Plain Talker]

Why is it silly? Either God creates people who are not the same as everyone else, or he doesn't. (Or he doesn't exist at all and the whole conversation is pointless.)

 

 

Arguing that people more than six feet three are "against nature" is no sillier than arguing that people who are homosexual are "against nature." There are just about the same amount of both.

 

Quite!

 

Being diabetic is "against Nature". Having a pacemaker is "against nature". Being Left-handed is "against nature!"

[Plain Talker]

Over the past 50years haven't some homosexuals been volunteering for studies that attempted to cure their gayness?

Regardless of whether god exists, wouldn't that suggest that a faction of homosexuals believe themselves that it was something that could be cured?

And if so is that due to feelings of guilt on their part for something they believe is unnatural?

If so, is this purely down to peer pressure/parenting or is it hard wired into the human brain to ensure the survival of our species?

If homosexuality is a natural part of evolution, what purpose does it serve in a society where birth ratio boys:girls is almost perfectly split?

Also, in modern times every state, feeling, emotion, everything, even obesity is being blamed on mental imbalances so why is it completely out of the question to suggest homosexuality is?

I don't find homosexuality to be "against nature" as humans are by nature interested in and social with members of the same sex. In situations where there are no social consequences or rules, bisexuality and homosexuality occur frequently. I can understand why between women but struggle to comprehend being attracted to men in any circumstance as we're big hairy sweaty smelly horrible aggressive things.

What I find odd is that someone would exclude the opposite sex completely from their list of potential partners and in some cases be repulsed by the idea of it. For example a friend claims he vomitted after copulation with a female as it was "disgusting". This seems unnatural to me and I can't see any evolutionary advantage for it.

Unless it is a deliberate evolutionary disadvantage that removes excess men from the playing field so there are more women for the heteros to choose from/mate with.

 

a) No, I believe that the conventions forced them into this "cure".

 

There have always been people who are Gay, and there always will be.

 

b) the friend who was disturbed by sleeping with a woman is allowed to feel that way. No one should be forcing him to have straight sex, same as no-one is insisting that you may only have gay sex.

 

as I said above, the human race cannot die out, much as the anti-gay lobby might have us think it would. There's just too many of us "straighties" who are indulging in straight lovemaking and producing kiddies, for that to be a danger.

[MrSmith]

Greengreeny said he made a CONSCIOUS decision.

 

 

I don't either, but I don't see how this counsellor was helping.

 

OK point taken.

[evildrneil]

I don't either, but I don't see how this counsellor was helping.

 

Isn't that jut because you don't buy into the therapeutic model? There's a vast range of therapeutic models out there many of which I don't buy into but I don't think that people using them should be removed from the BACP register for following them.