Zack, prisoner at "ex-gay" camp, to come home this weekend

[VertigoGal]

^good point.

edit: don't you hate it when you use the "^" and your post is the first one on the next page?

 

[LoveTown]

like I said before. Being homosexual is not a choice so it cannot be changed.

Heterosexuals that think it is a choice need to sit down and ask themselves "when did I decide to like the opposite sex?". The answer of course is, YOU DIDN'T!!! It just happens, it's biology. You like what you like and are attracted to it no matter what.

Yes, a person can keep from acting on their desires but that is essentially telling gay kids they have to live their lives as sexless drones or lie to every member of the opposite sex they are with.

Again, I argue the point that the world is not as advanced as everybody claims it is when it comes to accepting homosexuals. If it was, camps like this would not exist and they wouldnt be allowed to operate.

 

[melon]

Has the world gone mad lately?

Everywhere from CNN to "The View" now, we've been getting these interviews by that kid who now parades himself as "ex-gay," including the leaders, but having listened to the entire interviews, has anyone even paid attention to the subtext?

"Ex-gay," for the most part, only means forcing yourself to be celibate. One of the leaders downright said that he still fantasizes about men, but the fact that he does nothing about it means that "he isn't gay." Ugh.

So you're separating the sexual orientation from the sexuality, but when ordinary people hear "ex-gay," they automatically assume it means that you can make a full "conversion" from gay to straight, and the "ex-gay" folk always make a dance around that question, saying "well sometimes you can." The subtext behind that, of course, is that you've convinced a bisexual to suppress their homosexual attractions, and then we're back to Square One:

No one is being "changed." No one is being "converted." All you're doing is "suppressing," and the ignorant masses of hetero society then interpret it differently and lap it up. It's alchemy, I tell you. All the fancy chemicals in the world will never convert lead into gold, no matter how hard you try.

Melon

 

[Maggie1]

I can't believe this discussion is even going on. I was telling my dad about these camps and the first thing he said was, "what's the suicide rate?" It's so sick, teaching kids to suppress their natural feelings and emotions, using fear of eternal punishment to scare kids into "becoming straight." it hurts the kids and it hurts the women they'll get into a relationship with later on, one that's doomed to fail.

Ditto It Can't be emotionally healthy to force someone to suppress their feelings. This is emotional abuse. The people who run these camps are abusing these kids and should be put in jail!They are sickos who claim to be doing god's work.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Once again, I just want to know how these straight people who run these camps would feel if someone tried to make them "turn gay"? I just want to know why some people in this world can't just leave others the hell alone and let everybody go about their lives?

Nice post, melon . Good points.

Angela

 

[For Honor]

Interesting thread...


I always wondered - I've considered asking a male gay friend of mine - is it really from birth, or is it a choice?

I decided to turn that question on myself.

Naturally speaking, and I consider the laws of nature a lot in many situations. Naturally speaking, being homoesexual isn't really functional, just a form of preference. Obviously two people of the same gender wouldn't be able to procreate, not alone with themselves.

But then, maturely speaking, there are instances where I could see my life course changing and me being a possible bi sexual..

I believe raw sexuality is secular of gender roles.

But to actually have a relationships and such, I don't know...
It's not something I've really thought about a great deal.

I'm too intrigued with women though. Don't know how to describe it - "the mysterious distance between a man and a woman"? Perhaps, but maybe not quite.

ANd also....
Romanticly lovingly speaking, I guess it seems more balanced.


BUt enough about me.


=============


As far as an camp like that goes...
While the law in our land states that you are your parent's children (I'll only speak for NY, because that's where I am), a person is still an idividual. It is up to them to choose their path, and their lifestyle as they see fit. I don't think anyone is naive about the flak that gays often get from our American culture.

Realistically, though, some places are a lot worse, I've heard, in regards to homosexuals.



----

Eh, this is too compex an issue for me to make effective statements of the broad kind. Specific instances are unique.


Hmm...
I guess I do not have much to say, really...

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that sexual orientation can be changed, I think that the neurochemistry that 'hard wires' human sexuality could be altered to induce sexual attraction to ones own sex or visa versa. I think that if that was ever explored and/or exploited as a "treatment" of sorts it would raise a lot of questions about the individuals right over their sexual preference.

 

[LoveTown]

A_Wanderer.....have you ever read A Clockwork Orange. What you are proposing starkly reminds me of that.

And....if we go around genetically engineering people the way we want them to be don't you think the results could be terrifying?

I mean, it is rather, Hitler-esque dontcha think?

 

[melon]

I think that sexual orientation can be changed, I think that the neurochemistry that 'hard wires' human sexuality could be altered to induce sexual attraction to ones own sex or visa versa. I think that if that was ever explored and/or exploited as a "treatment" of sorts it would raise a lot of questions about the individuals right over their sexual preference.

You say that while science actually knows very little about what makes people straight, let alone gay.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that you shoot yourself in the foot with the Nazi analogy; what is totallitarian about giving people control over their own sex drive if they want it?

People should be free to live their lives the way that they want and they should not be forced into anything. I think that there are plenty of people who suffer because of their sexual identity and I think that if a good quality of life can be attained through treatment then they should have the right to explore such an avenue; I am not talking about this for gays and lesbians, I think it could have a lot more to do with gender identity issues where the SRS if pursued is very expensive and more or less permanent.

If it ever got to a stage where people could quite literally choose their sexual preference later on in life I think that it raises important questions about their rights as an individual over their bodies, this type of thing must not be forced upon anybody.

If people are gay then thats their own damn business and they should be allowed to live their lives the way that they want. Forcing somebody to go to a brainwashing camp to supress urges is not right, this kid has no choice in the matter and frankly I think that it is infringing on his own individual rights. Likewise if a means to alter human sexual preference and perhaps more importantly for applications gender identity was ever developed could never be forced upon anybody.

I do not imagine that most people - straight or gay - would rush out to change their sexual preferences or gender identity but for the minority where such treatment could help it should be allowed ~ of course only after such a treatment is a: developed and b: goes through all of the protocol and testing to become legal. This is a hypothetical I probably should have phrased my initial post a bit better.

Balancing the benefit that such a (hypothetical) option has with the inherent risk of abuse (people being forced into it) is a fine ethical dillema.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You say that while science actually knows very little about what makes people straight, let alone gay.

Melon

Replace the initial can with a more accurate could possibly.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And....if we go around genetically engineering people the way we want them to be don't you think the results could be terrifying?

I personally think that it is possible for such a technology to be abused, although it is not at that stage yet. I also think that if used properly then it could be very useful for humanity (or as such things usually are the rich end of it) ~ genetic manipulation could have a lot of potential it all depends on how it is used, the idea itself is not inherently evil ~ but this is probably a seperate issue from sexual preference and the related in that they are both aspects of sexuality although seperate gender identity.

I am not so sure that there is any one "gay gene" in humans ~ but presuming that there was a gay gene or a gay genotype that made homosexual behaviour more likely be it through hormone reactions, brain development or a combination of outside factors I think that any society that would be able to attain levels of genetic manipulation that could alter whole populations then it probably would have also moved ahead socially to a point where sexual preference is not considered the defining aspect of the individuals character ~ I mean reproductive concerns would probably be eliminated from the equation when technology is at that stage and once the major barriers like that are knocked down one would suspect that acceptence would on the whole increase.

 

[LoveTown]

well that is my point....if we find a way to genetically "fix" somebody that is gay dont you think that will lead to "fixing" people with other "problems" ?

I see it as a means to create a utopia. Therefore I used the Hitler reference. He was out to create the perfect world right? Blond hair, blue eyes. Genetic engineering could be a wonderful thing but there's always somebody out there that will corrupt it and use it for all the wrong reasons.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think that homosexuality is not something to be "fixed". My point was that any society that advances far enough to control human sexuality will probably have gotten beyond the prejudices against gays.

 

[LoveTown]

I doubt that. Technology often out-paces humanity.

We were advanced enough to build an atomic bomb. We were not humane enough to avoid vaporizing innocent people.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And in doing ended the war quicker ~ and since then those weapons have not been used in war.

 

[LoveTown]

so bombing 2 villiages and killing and maiming innocent people was justified?

hmm your thought process scares me.

I'm not trying to flame you, please don't take it like that. I just don't understand people that think like you. I mean that in the friendliest way possible.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I suggest that you look at the fighting in Okinawa and the massive civilian casualties (through effective brainwashing of the Japanese population by their government leading to suicides) and military casualties inflicted there. If there had been a conventional assault on the main islands many more people would have died, the Soviets may have gotten involved in the North and the end result ~ a defeated Japan ~ would be won at greater cost to all involved.

It was not a choice between right and wrong; but between bad and worse.

 

[financeguy]

There's also the factor that the invention of nukes probably stopped the Cold War from ever turning into a real war, given 'mutually assured destruction', etc.

 

[LoveTown]

I don't agree. But that's ok. We don't have to, life is more fun that way.

Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the thread.

 

[LoveTown]

i didnt realize the anniversary was coming up....

this should be read....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/08/05/japan.hiroshima/index.html