Personally, I believe anyone possessing an ego-dystonic sexual orientation should seek exploratory treatment. I’m against any form of therapy that would promote or reject a particular outcome above the interests of helping the client.
That’s not to say I do not believe LGB affirming approaches are generally the best option, but I’m aware of the existence of ‘ex-gays’ who are purportedly genuinely happy. Unfortunately the complexities involved cannot be conveyed by a mere poster.
Ego dystonic? The American Psychological Association has officially opposed the category of ego-dystonic homosexuality since 1987 and others have followed suit. Ask Ted Haggard about being genuinely happy. You cannot change one’s sexual orientation. You might choose celibacy, you might choose to marry someone of the opposite sex but it doesn’t change one’s innate orientation. One cannot convert a heterosexual to homosexuality or vice versa, not by aversion therapy or by prayer. It’s never been done because there is NO cure for sexual orientation, gay or straight.
I’m not using the term as a diagnostic category, merely succinctly referencing those who are, for whatever reason, unhappy with their sexual orientation. I’ll repeat, I do believe LGB affirming approaches are generally the healthiest, but I do not agree with thrusting it upon those seeking help, hence my preference for exploratory treatment.
If a man was sexually attracted to other men but wished to uphold his vows to his wife and children, and through his own introspection reached the conclusion of wanting to seek help in reducing his same-sex attractions, no therapist should prejudicially favour any outcome, whether it be to engage the client’s wishes or insist upon affirmation of an LGB identity.
The improbability of any change in sexual orientation should always be made clear of course, but if a gay man places his faith above his attractions and is happy to adopt an ‘ex-gay’ identity, who am I to judge his existence? So long as he does not operate with a dogmatic agenda.
“I’m not using the term as a diagnostic category, merely succinctly referencing those who are, for whatever reason, unhappy with their sexual orientation.”
. . . . . . . . . .
Why use an outdated diagnostic label, if you are not interested in diagnostic labels. To use a diagnostic category from the 1980s, and then argue in a way which drips of psychotherapy text book ancedotes from the 1980s, suggest to me that you are not up to date in this area
Although, I agree sexuality is complex, and it is better to think in terms of sexualities and diversity, however not everthing is desirable or healthy.
When ex-gays insist that they have been cured of their homosexuality, whilst at the same time arguing for legal recogntion and ownership of the term “ex-gay” . . . their attachment to homosexuality, whist at the same time denigrating it, is clearly perverse. This should be examined in rationale debate, not as tantrums on London transport posters by the Christain group “Core issuses”
I already explained my usage of the term, so I won’t repeat myself. As for me not being up to date, perhaps I’m sitting too safely on the fence. Sexuality is indeed incredibly complex and diverse, compounded by numerous other aspects of life, and no two individuals are the same. The term ‘ex-gay’ is obnoxious yes, and many who do adopt the label operate with sinister motives, but aside from that, the fact remains that there are those who are unhappy with their sexual orientation (heterosexuality included I’m sure), and I do not believe forcing affirmation should be the only approach.
“the fact remains that there are those who are unhappy with their sexual orientation (heterosexuality included I’m sure), and I do not believe forcing affirmation should be the only approach.”
. . . . .
Fine, but you do not hear of heterosexuals wanting therapy to become to gay, only the reverse. This is why the term “Heterosexual affirmative therapy” is some what of an oxymoron.
The practice of “Gay affirmative therapy” is essentail, in the face of aggressive heterosexism and homophobia at all levels of society.
The effect of this aggressive heterosexism has been well documented since the 1990s in studies which have looked at minority stress, and PTSD. Current research by Micheal King at UCL contines to develop these ideas further.
Is it any wonder that some LGB persons are unhappy with their sexuality when there are bastards like you around claiming that it can be changed? You are an ignorant fool,
I never said sexual orientation could be changed; in fact I stated directly otherwise. I also opined that I believe LGB affirming approaches to therapy are generally the best option, but acknowledge the diversity of individual circumstance.
So I’m an ignorant fool because I don’t happen to agree with forcing affirmation on those seeking help? I am not one to cast judgement on others, or make assumptions regarding anyone’s dissonance. To make sweeping generalisations is to be arrogant and contemptuous of difference.
I certainly don’t support the ‘ex-gay’ movement or any attempts to ‘cure’ homosexuality, and undoubtedly heterosexism alongside religion are the primary causes of discord, but if a (gay) man has managed to resolve his conflict by identifying as ‘ex-gay’ and marrying a woman, and is happy to continue living in such a manner without an agenda, then so be it.
Well if these bigoted posters can placed on buses or tubes then lets see the drivers refuse to drive the buses or tubes. Lets see people stranded.
The one thing you can guarantee about he phone-in that’ll follow the discussion is that there will be at least one self-loathing gay man who rings up to say the posters are a fantastic idea.
It seems to be the modus operandi of the producer(s) to always have a gay man on hand to say that equasl marriage is a terrible idea or that people definiotely should use the word ‘gay’ to mean bad, or whatever.
I’m not sure if it’s always the same guy they put through or there’s a small stable of them, but either way some man will ring up and say banning he posters is a ‘terrible abuse of free speech’ and and end the call saying: ‘and I’m gay’.
It happens every time they discuss anything gay on that programme.
The so called gay people C4M claimed were against equal marriage are probably not even gay, but people pretending to be. I’ve no doubt the same m.o. will be used in this case.
Very probably Rob.
It’s just weird. Whenever I’ve watched the show and there’s been any gay talking points, the exact same thing always happens!
BTW, I’m not suggesting for a second that The Wright Stuff is in any way homophobic or anti-gay. It’s a good, lively programme that expects its audience to be vaguely intelligent is far better than anything else on TV at that time of day.
Totally concur, dazzer. If those ‘gays’ who purport to be ex-gay or who voted against equal marriage are genuine, I challenge them to expose themselves, come forward and show their faces. I think we’ll have a long wait because, they don’t exist.
I agree with your views of The Wright Stuff, a very good programme indeed.
We have evolved in society to the position where Advertising standards do not allow people to advertise snake oil.
‘Gay cures’ are a version of snake oil, and must not therefore be allowed.
Consider for a moment the public reaction if there were posters on the side of buses advertising: a cure for Judaism; a cure for Islam; a cure for Catholicism; a cure for Protestantism; a cure for non-white skin. We all know what the reaction would be.
The Nazis thought they had a ‘cure’ and the ‘gay cure therapists’ are no different – their therapy rooms are the modern day gas chambers – so they should be treated as being neo-Nazis. Their ‘cure’ is to eradicate homosexuals – the same objective that the Nazis had.
They should be outlawed just as any other so-called ‘therapists’ would be outlawed for promoting a ‘cure’ for any other community in society.
People were born Judaism, Islamic, Catholic, people however were not born homosexual, there is no scientific proof of a gay gene.
Faith in a god is a choice, sexuality isn’t.
Agreed Matthew, there’s no definitive scientific proof of a gay gene.
However, there’s a tremendous amount of research out there to suggest sexuality is – in no small part – determined by the chemical conditions in the womb.
And just to disagre with you, no-one is born Catholic or Muslim (although there are specific genetic markers for some Jews). There might be a massive amount of Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc around you – but it’s purely environmental.
Not a jot of religious belief is written in your genes.
Matthew and dazzer, Google Dr. Simon LeVay, an openly gay British neuroscientist based in California. He has done extensive work on the hypothalamus of gay and straight cadavers. The evidence seems to point to genetics. His work has been replicated by other scientists.
“People were born Judaism” – heh.
People, take no notice of poor Matthew – anyone who believes any organised religion is inborn is clearly not worth listening to, let alone replying to.
People are born Catholic/Jewish, etc???! So where’e the Catholic gene then, Matthew? That’s such a daft thing to say – I worry about you.
I really do pity you. Your self-confessed NARTH therapy is clearly making you very unhappy and full of self-hate. Come out and be yourself.
James, I submit to you, what about a cure for the real threat to to marriage, ergo, hetero adultery and philandery :)? There are many candidates in need of a cure, especially those who voted against equal marriage. Sadly, they continue their aberrant behaviour in spite of it.
‘modern day gas chambers’ – I’m sorry but you can’t possibly compare ‘re-orientation therapy’ with the horrors of Nazi concentration camps.
It’s perfectly possible to make a point without referring to Nazi atrocities, and without devaluing your own argument and the suffering of those who’ve been systematically murdered.
How can the three people chosen to talk about this possibly have any insight into the complexities and issues involved in this. I anticipate an incredibly dumbed down, shallow, biased and insensitive treatment of this topic. Still the video may provide some material for discussion on The God Debate. I hope it ends up on Youtube.
Repression of natural desire is not a cure.
Repression is central to religion.
Banning those “ex-gay” ads was the best thing Boris has ever done. This so-called therapy is evil and destructive and it must be stopped altogether. Advertising it is definitely a really bad idea. Unless it came with a health warning – “EXTREMELY LIKELY TO RUIN YOUR LIFE, DESTROY YOUR SELF-ESTEEM, AND MAKE YOU DEPRESSED AND TRAUMATISED”
Freedom of speech does not allow you to make fraudulent claims, such as that this so-called “therapy” actually helps anyone. The only reason people want not to be gay is because bigoted evangelical fundamentalist Christians tell them that Jesus doesn’t like teh gayz. So claiming that would-be ex-gays are a group in their own right is downright fraudulent as well. It must not be advertised.
Good to see a hard-hitting, intellectually lofty panel discussing such an important issue.
It was terrible. – they obsessed over free speech rather then that it was a pack of lies
If Boris loses this case, can someone put up posters saying “ex-Christian…..”? That would really hurt the haters, humiliating them and playing them at their own game!
BTW, I saw a bus with the Stonewall ad on the side pass my house, and also spat out my coffee! I live in a conservative (in both senses), quiet Worcestershire market town. I thought the sky would fall in, but am delighted to report no-one has spoken about it, no complaints, no outrage in the press!
*almost* spat out my coffee!
It’s good to hear this debate is still being had; at the end of the day, it tends to backfire on the ex-gay folk when any serious discussion is held so that’s not an issue. What is an issue is the damage the ex-gay movement’s messages do to young and potentially vulnerable LGBT folk who may not know any better after living in a constant hetero-normative culture.
i’d only watch the wright stuff if i was paid to. the debates he has seems to centre on wright himself (and his cheeky-crappy jokes). if you happen to believe him to be an @rse (as i do) i am never disappointed that sh!t spews forth – the simplest forms of debate with brainless tv “personalities” or ex-hollyoak actors (there IS a reason they are actors ie, fick) and usually can be summarised as an uneventful and turgid. channel 5 would do better if they had granny wrestling on in that slot instead.