Have you heard of a "Homosexual Therapist?"

[mrblakemiller]

Y'know, I've just thought about this. Some people are saying that this man shouldn't counsel people who come into his office looking for help out of homosexuality because "they are denying what they really are, and that is detrimental to your mental health and makes you less happy."

Okay...

Then why did they go into his office in the first place? "Excuse me, Doc, I'm gay and really happy about it, but I think I'd like to have you help me lie to myself to become straight anyway." Nah, doesn't add up.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

snippety

Read through my other posts for a response(s), I've been arguing about this very thing with some girl for about the last 3 pages.

 

[Jacco]

Dammit, I cannot find this therapist anywhere. The radio show he was on seems to update it's guest and previous episode list very rarely, and it doesn't seem popular enough to have a wiki or anything. Very annoying.

Those are the same problems I am having. It's very annoying. =[

 

[AdeptaSororitas]

Even if, they can't what if the opposite is true? What if someone is homosexual, but has a lot of confusing feelings about women, should he shoehorn himself into being homosexual or try and get help to see if he's actually straight or bi? Thats what this guy is doing, he's not saying its a choice, I am. And that's because, well, everything can be and typically is a choice. People who emulate black people are born naturally white(or any other race), but choose to be a part of black culture, it makes them happy and feel complete, just as someone born homosexual can feel happy and complete being heterosexual. It's what makes you happy, no matter what you're born. Yes there's a chance they COULD have been straight, gay, bisexual all along, but science has yet to nail down what decides that so its up in the air at the moment.

The implication that I got from this guy is that he thinks that sexual orientation is a choice and that he is erroneously claiming that he could be able to change their orientation for them. If this is the case I think he is a repugnant or horrendously misguided human being. It could be possible that he did not articulate himself clearly and he merely want's to help people discover their sexuality and help them through their troubles in a manner that is actually practical. I find it baffling that someone who is Bisexual would claim that sexuality can be a choice and I find it arrogant of you to claim that your orientation is natural but others may not be. You can emulate a black guy all you want, you can even get melonoma risking tan to look black, but your gentics have made you ethnically white. A gay person pretending to be straight in the long run is only going to cause emotional damage for himself and sham wife. If he is truly happy and romantically and sexually attracted to a woman then I would say he isn't gay but Bi all along. Science has yet to nail down the cause, that's fair enough but the general concensus among most experts in the field is that sexual orientation is not a choice and that it can not be changed. That's what I was arguing.

We have equally valid and equally personal feelings on this matter. I personally did not see a single in what he said stating he wants to or has the ability to change a persons sexuality. And why is it arrogant? Abuse as a child or even positive and negative re-enforcement can alter everything from your religious views to your choice of fetishs. I'm not saying I'm 110% sure I'm nat-bi, I'm just saying some people who are straight, are really homosexual and want to be straight, some have a natural attraction to women but want to pursue men and, ultimately, lead a far happier life for it. I understand this isn't always the case but, it happens a lot more then either the straight or the gay community likes to think.

 

[orangeban]

Y'know, I've just thought about this. Some people are saying that this man shouldn't counsel people who come into his office looking for help out of homosexuality because "they are denying what they really are, and that is detrimental to your mental health and makes you less happy."

Okay...

Then why did they go into his office in the first place? "Excuse me, Doc, I'm gay and really happy about it, but I think I'd like to have you help me lie to myself to become straight anyway." Nah, doesn't add up.

They go in looking for help, because they are homosexual and unhappy, for, lets face it, reasons that are cultural in root (if the world totally accepted homosexuality as the same effectively as heterosexuality, would people be unhappy? (alright, I can think of one case, a gay/straight person has a good friend who fancies them but is the "wrong" gender for person A's sexuality, so they want it changed)). The therapist instead of trying to help them accept their homosexuality, tells them to repress it, which could lead to mental harm and unhappiness.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

"What the therapist is teaching is dangerous stuff, and we shouldn't allow the person to do that". I'm sure that has been said about a lot of historical figures. Darwin, for example. Say what you will about the man, replace "therapist" with "scientis" and you get the same result. If we didn't allow people to state "dangerous stuff" we'd still be living in caves.

I think comparing this guy to Darwin might be stretching a little.

Perhaps, dear reader. Perhaps. But again, his statment is more something people state when their ideas are becoming obsolete in an attempt to say "We need things the way they are". It moreso sounds like "We can't convince people we are right. Thus, we must attack the source of why they think differnet"

Whose statements? Mine, Darwin or homosexual therapist man?

Yours and people who subscribe to similar schools of thought.

I'm not going for 100% similarities here. But what I am saying is that you can't just dismiss an idea that disagrees with you because it's "Harmful", and then demand that the other party shut up

People have not given me a good reason to why this bothers them. It's not your life. The best you have is that "it's unhealthy". Unless you're required to foot the bill for it, I find it rather hard to object to this.

 

[Saulkar]

So, yeah, while I won't condemn you for your belief in god, I will, no matter what you do, hold you with some degree of contempt. Not that you should care, though.

Why hold anyone you have never met or has never done anything wrong towards you or anyone for that matter in contempt. I never understood that. No matter how wildly someone elses oppinions, beliefs, or behaviours are, as long as they are notting hurting me or anyone else. I hold no contempt towards them.

 

[luna_moth]

Yes, and, as it so happens, my therapist is a homosexual. Which is what I thought this thread was about.

He's a great guy.

That's totally what I thought this thread was gonna be about too

 

[orangeban]

"What the therapist is teaching is dangerous stuff, and we shouldn't allow the person to do that". I'm sure that has been said about a lot of historical figures. Darwin, for example. Say what you will about the man, replace "therapist" with "scientis" and you get the same result. If we didn't allow people to state "dangerous stuff" we'd still be living in caves.

I think comparing this guy to Darwin might be stretching a little.

Perhaps, dear reader. Perhaps. But again, his statment is more something people state when their ideas are becoming obsolete in an attempt to say "We need things the way they are". It moreso sounds like "We can't convince people we are right. Thus, we must attack the source of why they think differnet"

Whose statements? Mine, Darwin or homosexual therapist man?

Yours and people who subscribe to similar schools of thought.

I'm not going for 100% similarities here. But what I am saying is that you can't just dismiss an idea that disagrees with you because it's "Harmful", and then demand that the other party shut up

People have not given me a good reason to why this bothers them. It's not your life. The best you have is that "it's unhealthy". Unless you're required to foot the bill for it, I find it rather hard to object to this.

Because the therapist is exploiting people, he's taking people who are very unhappy, and then selling them a potentially dangerous "solution" which doesn't work anyway.

It's like a drug dealer exploiting homeless people who are desperate for something to take their minds of the streets, only instead of even giving them a high, the drug just makes them worse.

I think that is totally morally objectionable.

 

[Jacco]

If people aren't born gay, and if it's not a conscious choice, then what IS it? You can't have your cake and eat it too, pal, you have to choose where you stand.

It's called psychological development, what the OP is trying to say is that he/she/Cthulhu does not believe there is a gay gene that predispositions a person to be attracted the same sex. Instead they subscribe to the idea one sexuality is a developmental process that is created during the formative years of a person's life. That certain experiences, or lack there of, are what determine if a person is gay or straight. In layman's terms it means that you cannot be born gay. That one's attraction to men or women is determined the same way that any other attraction is. (ex: A dislike of loud noises, or a bondage fetish) That being gay is part of a person's personality and is rooted deep within their subconscious just like any personality trait, not their genetics.

You can't choose it, and you can't change it.

In case you're wondering, yes, I subscribe to this idea as well. Mainly because the claim that being gay is genetic is preposterous. If being gay were a matter of genetics then you would end up with entire family trees showing a disposition towards homosexuality. No, I don't think it's something to be cured; that's just as preposterous as it being genetic.(and an insult to sane thought to boot) I don't see anything wrong homosexuality, and I find it hard to fathom why what gender someone fancies matters at all. Surprisingly I was raised as a Catholic and I take huge issue with the anti-gay stance of the church. It literally contradicts everything I was taught in those agonizingly boring catechism classes every week as a child. I rant though, the disagreements I have with my religion are better suited for a different topic.

Thank you for understanding my point. I could not have said this better myself. And I was also raised Catholic.

 

[Cakes]

Yes, the LGBT community. It becomes the business of everyone else when it supports homophobic views

WHY? It's a person's private life! You cannot have it both ways. Either private behavior can be other people's business, or it cannot be. Why does this bother you? Because it's a view you don't agree with?

I've said this more than once. It is sending out (publically) extremely twisted messages about what homosexuality is (that it can be 'cured'), a message not particularly helpful in a world where lesbians, gays and bisexuals are still largely treated like shit. This is only contributing to discrimination, making it far more than a private issue, IMO.

 

[Jacco]

Because the therapist is exploiting people, he's taking people who are very unhappy, and then selling them a potentially dangerous "solution" which doesn't work anyway.

It's like a drug dealer exploiting homeless people who are desperate for something to take their minds of the streets, only instead of even giving them a high, the drug just makes them worse.

I think that is totally morally objectionable.

Or a doctor telling someone they have a 12% chance to survive their cancer or a 20% chance if they opt for chemo...

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

snip

I'm starting to get the feeling that we're going in circles here and I don't think either one of us is likely to budge from our seperate stances on the matter. My message box is flooding and I'm getting rather bored with this thread. While I disagree with you it's been an interesting discussion. I bid you good day madame.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

snippety

Read through my other posts for a response(s), I've been arguing about this very thing with some girl for about the last 3 pages.

I see. And you still seem to be of the opinion that everyone is born their sexuality and that can't change. So my points still stand.

Here's a picture that does a good job of explaining some of it:

Now it talks solely about sexual deviancies and perversions, but it can also be applied to sexual orientation in general.

People aren't born with the personality that they'll have forever. Their personality grows over time and is entirely capable of changing dramatically given the correct series of events. The same thing is true to sexuality. Now I'm not saying I can watch someone grow up and guess exactly what they'll be like, but I'm a believer in the idea that our environment and experience can greatly shape our mental being. And that extends to sexual preferences. There is nothing that says that people have to be either born into their sexual orientation or that everyone chooses their sexual orientation. I believe firmly that people "grow" into it, or "learn" similar to who they "grow"/"learn" their personality.

Edit: Sorry about quoting you again. I was writing up this post when you stated that you were growing tired of the thread. If you don't want to continue to discuss the topic, that's fine. I won't quote you any more and save you the trouble of looking at notifications for messages you have no intention on responding to.

 

[orangeban]

Because the therapist is exploiting people, he's taking people who are very unhappy, and then selling them a potentially dangerous "solution" which doesn't work anyway.

It's like a drug dealer exploiting homeless people who are desperate for something to take their minds of the streets, only instead of even giving them a high, the drug just makes them worse.

I think that is totally morally objectionable.

Or a doctor telling someone they have a 12% chance to survive their cancer or a 20% chance if they opt for chemo...

Sorry, being thick here, are you agreeing with me or not? I'm not actually sure what a chemo is, but I realise that you may disagree with me because of our differing views on the nature of homosexuality (I say: Genentics, though you could supress it by choice, you say: subconcious decision)

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I've said this more than once. It is sending out (publically) extremely twisted messages about what homosexuality is (that it can be 'cured'), a message not particularly helpful in a world where lesbians, gays and bisexuals are still largely treated like shit. This is only contributing to discrimination, making it far more than a private issue, IMO.

He is allowing people to chose if they want to. If that hurts your argument, then I'm sorry. Saying you disagree with him is one thing. I disagree with a lot of people. I still think they should be allowed to discorse their life as they so chose.
"This is only contributing to discrimination, making it far more than a private issue". I don't really belive that. If you've evidence this hurts the GLBT community (As in, numbers from an unbiased source) enough to pry into peoples lives, then you may have a point. Otherwise... not so much.

"What the therapist is teaching is dangerous stuff, and we shouldn't allow the person to do that". I'm sure that has been said about a lot of historical figures. Darwin, for example. Say what you will about the man, replace "therapist" with "scientis" and you get the same result. If we didn't allow people to state "dangerous stuff" we'd still be living in caves.

I think comparing this guy to Darwin might be stretching a little.

Perhaps, dear reader. Perhaps. But again, his statment is more something people state when their ideas are becoming obsolete in an attempt to say "We need things the way they are". It moreso sounds like "We can't convince people we are right. Thus, we must attack the source of why they think differnet"

Whose statements? Mine, Darwin or homosexual therapist man?

Yours and people who subscribe to similar schools of thought.

I'm not going for 100% similarities here. But what I am saying is that you can't just dismiss an idea that disagrees with you because it's "Harmful", and then demand that the other party shut up

People have not given me a good reason to why this bothers them. It's not your life. The best you have is that "it's unhealthy". Unless you're required to foot the bill for it, I find it rather hard to object to this.

Because the therapist is exploiting people, he's taking people who are very unhappy, and then selling them a potentially dangerous "solution" which doesn't work anyway.

It's like a drug dealer exploiting homeless people who are desperate for something to take their minds of the streets, only instead of even giving them a high, the drug just makes them worse.

I think that is totally morally objectionable.

That's a good point. However, you are missing one thing: these people go to him BECAUSE he is offering this. He's not trying to bait-and-switch GLBT people. It's not like the latter where someone is seeking to activily exploit them.

However, we've both made good points. And I grow weary and I need to head off to bed. As I do with all debates, internet or otherwise, I shall extend to you this

Spoiler

You may have the last word

 

[RelexCryo]

snip

He's a random guy with only personal anecdotes as his evidence. So no, he has no meat.

Quick question, OP. Green is my favorite color. Was this a conscious choice of mine, in your opinion?

Is your avatar Static Shock as a My Little Pony? Just curious.

 

[orangeban]

I've said this more than once. It is sending out (publically) extremely twisted messages about what homosexuality is (that it can be 'cured'), a message not particularly helpful in a world where lesbians, gays and bisexuals are still largely treated like shit. This is only contributing to discrimination, making it far more than a private issue, IMO.

He is allowing people to chose if they want to. If that hurts your argument, then I'm sorry. Saying you disagree with him is one thing. I disagree with a lot of people. I still think they should be allowed to discorse their life as they so chose.
"This is only contributing to discrimination, making it far more than a private issue". I don't really belive that. If you've evidence this hurts the GLBT community (As in, numbers from an unbiased source) enough to pry into peoples lives, then you may have a point. Otherwise... not so much.

"What the therapist is teaching is dangerous stuff, and we shouldn't allow the person to do that". I'm sure that has been said about a lot of historical figures. Darwin, for example. Say what you will about the man, replace "therapist" with "scientis" and you get the same result. If we didn't allow people to state "dangerous stuff" we'd still be living in caves.

I think comparing this guy to Darwin might be stretching a little.

Perhaps, dear reader. Perhaps. But again, his statment is more something people state when their ideas are becoming obsolete in an attempt to say "We need things the way they are". It moreso sounds like "We can't convince people we are right. Thus, we must attack the source of why they think differnet"

Whose statements? Mine, Darwin or homosexual therapist man?

Yours and people who subscribe to similar schools of thought.

I'm not going for 100% similarities here. But what I am saying is that you can't just dismiss an idea that disagrees with you because it's "Harmful", and then demand that the other party shut up

People have not given me a good reason to why this bothers them. It's not your life. The best you have is that "it's unhealthy". Unless you're required to foot the bill for it, I find it rather hard to object to this.

Because the therapist is exploiting people, he's taking people who are very unhappy, and then selling them a potentially dangerous "solution" which doesn't work anyway.

It's like a drug dealer exploiting homeless people who are desperate for something to take their minds of the streets, only instead of even giving them a high, the drug just makes them worse.

I think that is totally morally objectionable.

That's a good point. However, you are missing one thing: these people go to him BECAUSE he is offering this. He's not trying to bait-and-switch GLBT people. It's not like the latter where someone is seeking to activily exploit them.

However, we've both made good points. And I grow weary and I need to head off to bed. As I do with all debates, internet or otherwise, I shall extend to you this

Spoiler

You may have the last word

Very well, good night, it's been an interesting argument and I enjoyed it alot.

Though since I have the last word I'm totally gonna slip in one last argument, lets adapt my drug dealer analogy a bit, this time the dealer is saying the drug gets you high, but it doesn't, just addicted and other nasty side-effects. This therapist is saying he can turn you straight, I think that's not true, I think he just represses your sexuality, which I also believe is unhealthy. There, done, and I think that's as clear as I can make my points.

Again, good night, I had fun, hope you did.

 

[AdeptaSororitas]

snip

I'm starting to get the feeling that we're going in circles here and I don't think either one of us is likely to budge from our seperate stances on the matter. My message box is flooding and I'm getting rather bored with this thread. While I disagree with you it's been an interesting discussion. I bid you good day madame.

I was actually feeling exactly the same way ^//^ Glad to have this truly interesting discussion, I'm glad we're both good enough to let it end.

 

[Jacco]

Sorry, being thick here, are you agreeing with me or not? I'm not actually sure what a chemo is, but I realise that you may disagree with me because of our differing views on the nature of homosexuality (I say: Genentics, though you could supress it by choice, you say: subconcious decision)

I am disagreeing that it is a "dangerous solution that doesn't work anyway" by equating it to chemotherapy, a treatment for cancer. Someone may be dying of cancer, but by temporarily doing MORE damage to the body, they may in the long run be cured.

The same can be said of gays seeking this guy's guidance. They may be miserable being gay, but by doing more damage, as you put it, it may help them in the future to accept what they are or be happy with someone of the opposite sex.