Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should we ban gay conversion therapy?

Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 5:29:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

If we aren't against banning psychics, faith healers, and homeopathy, then I don't really see a consistent argument against "gay conversion" therapy - even if it demonstrably does more harm than any possible good.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 5:55:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:29:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

If we aren't against banning psychics, faith healers, and homeopathy, then I don't really see a consistent argument against "gay conversion" therapy - even if it demonstrably does more harm than any possible good.

I can agree to that, as long as the practice of it on minor children is banned.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 5:59:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:57:40 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I also think religious indoctrination / brainwashing of children / minors should be banned.

Define 'indoctrination'/'brainwashing'. And why should only religious indoctrination be banned, what about other forms of indoctrination?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 6:27:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:29:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

If we aren't against banning psychics, faith healers, and homeopathy, then I don't really see a consistent argument against "gay conversion" therapy - even if it demonstrably does more harm than any possible good.

This.
Nolite Timere
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 7:39:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:55:34 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:29:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

If we aren't against banning psychics, faith healers, and homeopathy, then I don't really see a consistent argument against "gay conversion" therapy - even if it demonstrably does more harm than any possible good.

I can agree to that, as long as the practice of it on minor children is banned.

Agreed on that much.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 8:00:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:59:46 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:57:40 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I also think religious indoctrination / brainwashing of children / minors should be banned.

Define 'indoctrination'/'brainwashing'. And why should only religious indoctrination be banned, what about other forms of indoctrination?

OK, give me examples of any other indoctrinations that begin practically at birth. I gave you a specific. Give me some specifics. to evaluate.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 8:04:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
in-doc-tri-na-tion
[in-dok-truh-ney-shuh n]
1. the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view:
religious indoctrination.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 8:07:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
brain-wash-ing or brain-washing, brain washing
[breyn-wosh-ing, -waw-shing]

noun
1. a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, especially through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.
2. any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion:
brainwashing by TV commercials.
3. an instance of subjecting or being subjected to such techniques:
efforts to halt the brainwashing of captive audiences.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 8:25:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

I think the results of Gay Conversion therapy, if it ever even takes off, which I dont think it will, will be dismal. Just like psych conversion therapy is for pedophiles. why? because sexual preference for the big majority of Gays is hardwired int their genes. they still argue about if they found a "gay gene" yet. some say yes, some say no. but I think it is genetic. I say this mainly for Gay men. in the case of women you see more what they call "emotional lesbians." where a woman--who is usually more open about being bi anyway than men--has trauma or problems with males and decides to try women. I bet about ten times more women than men are bi or bi-curious.
also I dont see that many gay men even watning to convert? why? since its more aceptable now then ever in society and it getting more so all the time.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 9:06:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The biggest problem with gay conversion therapy is that it's effectively an attempt to purge a person of ingrained tendencies that are part of his neural wiring.
It won't be until brain programming becomes a serious field that it'll be an easy process.
For now, its effectiveness depends upon willpower, whether the person actually wants to change (it won't accomplish anything at all if the person doesn't want to change), how much accountability is present, and how much temptation his/her environment provides. These factors together are usually as such that the person ultimately doesn't change from the therapy (though there are some exceptions). Because of the low success rate (human libido can be extremely difficult to permanently overcome without eventually relapsing), scientists call it fraudulent. It really isn't, though (well, it's possible that some centers use bull "techniques"), and it shouldn't be banned.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 10:37:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

I agree. I think it should stay around for people who want to use it. But everything should stay in it's lane and not gain too much power. Thats where problems start.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 10:44:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 10:39:55 PM, RisKYourself wrote:
Conversation is therapy. What is next? Only texting.

Hi RM.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 11:41:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

No one is stopping scientific research; people are against applying the currently available treatments to people because they are largely ineffectual and sometimes downright harmful. I personally find the idea of conversion therapy, and the moral character of anyone who would suggest it, to be utterly repugnant, but that's not a worthy standard on which to ban it IF it can be made to be both effective and safe. At the moment, it is neither. It should never be legal when it comes to minors, and attempts to strong-arm a minor into such therapy should be grounds for granting medical emancipation.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
TheOpinionist
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 2:47:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

It should be a choice. If someone wants to do it for religious reasons, who has the right to stop them?
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 6:33:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 8:00:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:59:46 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:57:40 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I also think religious indoctrination / brainwashing of children / minors should be banned.

Define 'indoctrination'/'brainwashing'. And why should only religious indoctrination be banned, what about other forms of indoctrination?

OK, give me examples of any other indoctrinations that begin practically at birth. I gave you a specific. Give me some specifics. to evaluate.

For example, a scientist's kid would be brought up from birth being taught the absolute supremacy of the scientific paradigm. Irrespective of whether science is good or not, it still qualifies as indoctrination under your definition.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:38:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 6:33:11 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 7/24/2015 8:00:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:59:46 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:57:40 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I also think religious indoctrination / brainwashing of children / minors should be banned.

Define 'indoctrination'/'brainwashing'. And why should only religious indoctrination be banned, what about other forms of indoctrination?

OK, give me examples of any other indoctrinations that begin practically at birth. I gave you a specific. Give me some specifics. to evaluate.

For example, a scientist's kid would be brought up from birth being taught the absolute supremacy of the scientific paradigm. Irrespective of whether science is good or not, it still qualifies as indoctrination under your definition.

Which holy book do the scientist use for their indoctrination? Have you heard the song" Science love me yes I know, Neil deGrasse tells me so" being taught to children? Is teaching a child that 2+2=4 indoctrination?
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 8:18:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 7:38:19 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 6:33:11 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 7/24/2015 8:00:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:59:46 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:57:40 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I also think religious indoctrination / brainwashing of children / minors should be banned.

Define 'indoctrination'/'brainwashing'. And why should only religious indoctrination be banned, what about other forms of indoctrination?

OK, give me examples of any other indoctrinations that begin practically at birth. I gave you a specific. Give me some specifics. to evaluate.

For example, a scientist's kid would be brought up from birth being taught the absolute supremacy of the scientific paradigm. Irrespective of whether science is good or not, it still qualifies as indoctrination under your definition.

Which holy book do the scientist use for their indoctrination? Have you heard the song" Science love me yes I know, Neil deGrasse tells me so" being taught to children? Is teaching a child that 2+2=4 indoctrination?

I never said they use a holy book, nor that they teach songs; but neither are prerequisites to indoctrination, which is simply defined as 'the act of teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view'.

Teaching a child, from birth, that science is the supreme paradigm, falls under this definition. It is the inculcating of children that only scientific knowledge is valid. Ergo, society's current scientific hegemony is indoctrination.

Teaching 2+2=4 isn't indoctrination, because it is an analytic, necessary truth. It isn't a principle or a doctrine, which is normally some epistemological paradigm.

However, I think all indoctrination is unavoidable and not necessarily bad. It all depends on whether that which is being indoctrinated is good or bad.
kkal
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 8:36:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

The medical community gave up trying to cure/treat homosexuality after more than a hundred years of trying. Their solution? Let's just call it normal. They can't cure cancer either so why not just call it a natural cause of death? Somebody needs to continue in an effort to cure this mental/sexual dysfunction!!!
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 5:46:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness?

Most of the time, people in those "clinics" are coerced into attending or are placed their by guardians, and have no say in the matter at all. The coercion I refer to is both direct and indirect. It is direct in the sense that many have friend or family pressuring them to attend. It is also indirect in the sense that gay people may feel like their community would not except them if they were gay, or that if they were gay they would never be treated normally, and so they feel like the only way to fit in is to attend those clinics. While no one may be directly pressuring them to attend, they may still feel as if they have no other choice, regardless of whether they want to or not.

Moreover, the "therapy" should be prohibited because it does harm. The FDA, for instance, does not allow drugs to go on the market that are totally ineffective, especially if those drugs are also harmful. GCT is both harmful and totally ineffective, and so it has no place as a legal "treatment" for anything. If need be, I can pull up articles describing the brutal, inhumane conditions often encountered by "patients" and the physical and psychological damage that was done to them while undergoing GCT.

Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy.

Why should people be cured of being gay? Should we, in a similar vein, cure people of being Black or Asian? Should we be pursuing science that would allow us to mold everyone into "better" people, as determined a heteronormative, WASP culture?

Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

No it isn't. Would it have been a intellectual crime to stop Mengele experimenting on the Jews? Science motivated by bigotry is not science, it's apologetics for a regime of bigotry.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 6:43:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 5:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness?

Most of the time, people in those "clinics" are coerced into attending or are placed their by guardians, and have no say in the matter at all. The coercion I refer to is both direct and indirect. It is direct in the sense that many have friend or family pressuring them to attend. It is also indirect in the sense that gay people may feel like their community would not except them if they were gay, or that if they were gay they would never be treated normally, and so they feel like the only way to fit in is to attend those clinics. While no one may be directly pressuring them to attend, they may still feel as if they have no other choice, regardless of whether they want to or not.

Moreover, the "therapy" should be prohibited because it does harm. The FDA, for instance, does not allow drugs to go on the market that are totally ineffective, especially if those drugs are also harmful. GCT is both harmful and totally ineffective, and so it has no place as a legal "treatment" for anything. If need be, I can pull up articles describing the brutal, inhumane conditions often encountered by "patients" and the physical and psychological damage that was done to them while undergoing GCT.

Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy.

Why should people be cured of being gay? Should we, in a similar vein, cure people of being Black or Asian? Should we be pursuing science that would allow us to mold everyone into "better" people, as determined a heteronormative, WASP culture?

Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

No it isn't. Would it have been a intellectual crime to stop Mengele experimenting on the Jews? Science motivated by bigotry is not science, it's apologetics for a regime of bigotry.

Bravo!!! Bravo !!!
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 6:56:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 8:36:52 AM, kkal wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

The medical community gave up trying to cure/treat homosexuality after more than a hundred years of trying. Their solution? Let's just call it normal. They can't cure cancer either so why not just call it a natural cause of death? Somebody needs to continue in an effort to cure this mental/sexual dysfunction!!!

If it is such a problem why wouldn't the homosexuals be more worried about finding a cure than the vast majority of heteros that. It is OBVIOUS the heteros are MUCH more concerned about it than the homosexuals!!! WHy is that?
kkal
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 11:09:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 6:56:44 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:36:52 AM, kkal wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

The medical community gave up trying to cure/treat homosexuality after more than a hundred years of trying. Their solution? Let's just call it normal. They can't cure cancer either so why not just call it a natural cause of death? Somebody needs to continue in an effort to cure this mental/sexual dysfunction!!!

If it is such a problem why wouldn't the homosexuals be more worried about finding a cure than the vast majority of heteros that. It is OBVIOUS the heteros are MUCH more concerned about it than the homosexuals!!! WHy is that?

It's a Mental illness! Simply, mentally ill people often think the rest of the world is wrong. They often reject help in any form, because they are suspicious. We do no good by encouraging mentally defective behavior. Heteros (sane people) are normally concerned about illnesses of all kinds. This is why gays are forbidden to donate blood. Reasonable people see the danger, while gays protest this practice because their illness does not allow them to see the danger to the common good. They are much more concerned of being thought of as normal.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 12:10:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 5:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness?

Most of the time, people in those "clinics" are coerced into attending or are placed their by guardians, and have no say in the matter at all. The coercion I refer to is both direct and indirect. It is direct in the sense that many have friend or family pressuring them to attend. It is also indirect in the sense that gay people may feel like their community would not except them if they were gay, or that if they were gay they would never be treated normally, and so they feel like the only way to fit in is to attend those clinics. While no one may be directly pressuring them to attend, they may still feel as if they have no other choice, regardless of whether they want to or not.

If someone feels so strongly that they are seeking medical treatment to "fix" something about themselves due to how others perceive them because of it, is it not objectively better for said person to seek treatment so they can be part of the group that they desire to be part of so bad? If the guardian believes that the child needs this to be accepted, is that not their duty? Just because you and I feel this is not something that needs to be corrected, and we believe that this person should just abandon the group he wants to belong to (family, church, "society"), doesn't mean the procedure is inherently evil.

I mean, if you feel bad, should you not be able to have help in feeling better? Or, do you just say, "well, that's a stupid thing to feel bad about, so no help for you"?

Moreover, the "therapy" should be prohibited because it does harm. The FDA, for instance, does not allow drugs to go on the market that are totally ineffective, especially if those drugs are also harmful. GCT is both harmful and totally ineffective, and so it has no place as a legal "treatment" for anything. If need be, I can pull up articles describing the brutal, inhumane conditions often encountered by "patients" and the physical and psychological damage that was done to them while undergoing GCT.
I have ADHD. Society said I need to correct it. The treatment is to take a pill that makes me suicidal (well, not really, but it drives me insane due to my thoughts of death). Should this be banned, too?
Is gay conversion therapy any worse than curing pedophilia? I'd assume the methods are the same, since it is "don't feel attracted to that!!". Do you have the same feelings of attempts to cure other perceived issues in the head?
Also, are you suggesting that GCT is categorically bad? Or just that, in many cases, it is harmful? I'd assume being beaten with a Bible in the basement of a pastor is different than a doctor's office psychological treatment.

Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy.

Why should people be cured of being gay?
Why should they be cured of any affliction or deviation of the mind? I know what you are getting at, but think about how arrogant it actually is. Being gay is okay, but being X, Y, Z is not. Who are you to tell others how to feel about themselves?

Should we, in a similar vein, cure people of being Black or Asian?
Skin-tone, no. If you are talking about culture or mentality, we do this all the time.

Should we be pursuing science that would allow us to mold everyone into "better" people, as determined a heteronormative, WASP culture?
First, that is what society does. If you want to be part of the group, you need a group mentality. Ironically, it is called bullying or abuse to deny people into a group, but, if I want to "fix" something about myself that will allow me to be part of the group, that is flat out wrong. (but, only in certain instances, right?)

Second, why is the WASP culture the mold? If we assume WASP is akin to the GOP, society is very much moving away from that, and yet, other afflictions of the head are attacked and need to be corrected (homophobia, racism, non-empathy, etc.). Or, are cultural training and sexual harassment classes not designed to train the brain to "correct" behavior?
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 4:01:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 11:09:54 AM, kkal wrote:
At 7/25/2015 6:56:44 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:36:52 AM, kkal wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

The medical community gave up trying to cure/treat homosexuality after more than a hundred years of trying. Their solution? Let's just call it normal. They can't cure cancer either so why not just call it a natural cause of death? Somebody needs to continue in an effort to cure this mental/sexual dysfunction!!!

If it is such a problem why wouldn't the homosexuals be more worried about finding a cure than the vast majority of heteros that. It is OBVIOUS the heteros are MUCH more concerned about it than the homosexuals!!! WHy is that?

It's a Mental illness! Simply, mentally ill people often think the rest of the world is wrong.

Excuse me, but that sound more like the homophobic people that want to "cure" homosexuality. The "rest of the world", especially the vast majority of the mental health professional, do NOT classify homosexuality as a "mental illness:. Only homophobic people do. And, by the way, homophobia IS classified as a mental illness that CAN be cured.

They often reject help in any form, because they are suspicious. We do no good by encouraging mentally defective behavior. Heteros (sane people) are normally concerned about illnesses of all kinds. This is why gays are forbidden to donate blood. Reasonable people see the danger, while gays protest this practice because their illness does not allow them to see the danger to the common good. They are much more concerned of being thought of as normal.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 4:09:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 11:09:54 AM, kkal wrote:
At 7/25/2015 6:56:44 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:36:52 AM, kkal wrote:
At 7/24/2015 5:17:29 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't think it should be banned. I am very sceptical about the effectiveness of this therapy, but if a gay man genuinely wants to attempt to become straight, then who are we to stop him in his pursuit of happiness? Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy. Regardless of whether you want this potential discovery to happen, it is an intellectual crime to prevent scientific research in the name of a subjective ideology.

The medical community gave up trying to cure/treat homosexuality after more than a hundred years of trying. Their solution? Let's just call it normal. They can't cure cancer either so why not just call it a natural cause of death? Somebody needs to continue in an effort to cure this mental/sexual dysfunction!!!

If it is such a problem why wouldn't the homosexuals be more worried about finding a cure than the vast majority of heteros that. It is OBVIOUS the heteros are MUCH more concerned about it than the homosexuals!!! WHy is that?

It's a Mental illness! Simply, mentally ill people often think the rest of the world is wrong. They often reject help in any form, because they are suspicious. We do no good by encouraging mentally defective behavior.

OK. Necessary to repeat myself; Homosexuality is NOT classified as a mental illness as per the VAST majority of the mental health professionals. HOMOPHOBIA IS. So that basis, yes homophobic people think the rest of the world is wrong. Homophobic people reject help in any form. And yes, we do no good by encouraging the homophobic mentally defective behavior.

Heteros (sane people) are normally concerned about illnesses of all kinds. This is why gays are forbidden to donate blood. Reasonable people see the danger, while gays protest this practice because their illness does not allow them to see the danger to the common good. They are much more concerned of being thought of as normal.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 8:19:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 12:10:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/25/2015 5:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Most of the time, people in those "clinics" are coerced into attending or are placed their by guardians, and have no say in the matter at all. The coercion I refer to is both direct and indirect. It is direct in the sense that many have friend or family pressuring them to attend. It is also indirect in the sense that gay people may feel like their community would not except them if they were gay, or that if they were gay they would never be treated normally, and so they feel like the only way to fit in is to attend those clinics. While no one may be directly pressuring them to attend, they may still feel as if they have no other choice, regardless of whether they want to or not.

If someone feels so strongly that they are seeking medical treatment to "fix" something about themselves due to how others perceive them because of it, is it not objectively better for said person to seek treatment so they can be part of the group that they desire to be part of so bad?

Right, I think the correct statement would be "it is objectively better not to attach such harsh stigma to LGBTQAP people that they feel so uncomfortable being who they are that they would rather engage in pointless self-harm than be themselves."

Moreover, it is a TOTAL misnomer to refer to gay conversion therapy (GCT) as a "medical" treatment. No reputable medical institution endorses any form of GCT. To quote the APA: "The most important fact about these 'therapies' is that they are
based on a view of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major mental
health professions...Despite the general consensus of major medical, health, and mental health professions that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality, efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public...Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation...Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful." [http://www.apa.org...] The AMA concurs. [http://www.ama-assn.org...?]

And sure, if GCT worked, then maybe you could write that is would be worthwhile "for said person to seek treatment." You'd still be incorrect, but at least there would be a basis in fact. GCT is totally ineffective. "A 2009 APA task force found that conversion therapies, despite being touted by religious organizations, have little evidence to back them up. A review of studies from 1960 to 2007 found only 83 on the topic, the vast majority of which did not have the experimental muscle to show whether the therapies achieved their stated goals...The best-quality studies were more recent and qualitative, the APA task force found...'These studies show that enduring change to an individual's sexual orientation is uncommon,' the task force wrote in their 2009 report. The participants continued to report same-sex attractions after the conversion therapy, and were not significantly more attracted to the opposite gender...These studies did find that conversion therapy could be harmful, however. Negative effects included 'loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality and anxiety.'" [http://www.livescience.com...]

"[A] peer-reviewed study of 202 respondents published in 2002, that 88% of participants failed to achieve a sustained change in their sexual behavior and 3% reported changing their orientation to heterosexual. The remainder reported either losing all sexual drive or attempting to remain celibate, with no change in attraction...Many respondents felt harmed by the attempt to change, and reported depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, hypervigilance of gender-deviant mannerisms, social isolation, fear of being a child abuser and poor self-esteem." [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

If the guardian believes that the child needs this to be accepted, is that not their duty?

A guardian has the obligation to act in the best interests of the child. It is not in any child's best interest to subject them to a highly ineffective "treatment," that is unsupported by reputable organizations and that is apt to actually harm the child.

Moreover, the "therapy" should be prohibited because it does harm. The FDA, for instance, does not allow drugs to go on the market that are totally ineffective, especially if those drugs are also harmful. GCT is both harmful and totally ineffective, and so it has no place as a legal "treatment" for anything. If need be, I can pull up articles describing the brutal, inhumane conditions often encountered by "patients" and the physical and psychological damage that was done to them while undergoing GCT.
I have ADHD. Society said I need to correct it. The treatment is to take a pill that makes me suicidal (well, not really, but it drives me insane due to my thoughts of death). Should this be banned, too?

Unlike ADHD, homosexuality doesn't impair functioning and isn't an illness. Moreover, you choose to take your medication. As I noted earlier, GCT is most often coercive, not voluntary. Finally, while there are acceptable risks in all medications, if the medication ONLY harms and has no or nearly no curative effect (like GCT), then it would and should be banned.

Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy.

Why should people be cured of being gay?
Why should they be cured of any affliction or deviation of the mind? I know what you are getting at, but think about how arrogant it actually is. Being gay is okay, but being X, Y, Z is not. Who are you to tell others how to feel about themselves?

As the evidence above shows, modern medical experts no longer view it as a "deviation." At the very least, it's not a harmful deviation--it's not worth stigmatizing people. Being left-handed is a "deviation," but shocking people with electrodes to get them to be right-handed would not acceptable. As for that last question, I don't even see how it's relevant.

Should we, in a similar vein, cure people of being Black or Asian?
Skin-tone, no. If you are talking about culture or mentality, we do this all the time.

Okay, so if skin tone is not something that should be "cured," then why is homosexuality something that should be "cured?"

Should we be pursuing science that would allow us to mold everyone into "better" people, as determined a heteronormative, WASP culture?
First, that is what society does.

Not really. We don't force Black people to change their skin tone by using medical techniques. We don't experiment on Jews like Mengele to rid them of their negative qualities. Sure, society places pressure on people to conform, but there are clear areas where that tendency is abused, and GCT is one of those areas.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
TheChristian
Posts: 1,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 8:23:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 8:19:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 12:10:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/25/2015 5:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Most of the time, people in those "clinics" are coerced into attending or are placed their by guardians, and have no say in the matter at all. The coercion I refer to is both direct and indirect. It is direct in the sense that many have friend or family pressuring them to attend. It is also indirect in the sense that gay people may feel like their community would not except them if they were gay, or that if they were gay they would never be treated normally, and so they feel like the only way to fit in is to attend those clinics. While no one may be directly pressuring them to attend, they may still feel as if they have no other choice, regardless of whether they want to or not.

If someone feels so strongly that they are seeking medical treatment to "fix" something about themselves due to how others perceive them because of it, is it not objectively better for said person to seek treatment so they can be part of the group that they desire to be part of so bad?

Right, I think the correct statement would be "it is objectively better not to attach such harsh stigma to LGBTQAP people that they feel so uncomfortable being who they are that they would rather engage in pointless self-harm than be themselves."

Moreover, it is a TOTAL misnomer to refer to gay conversion therapy (GCT) as a "medical" treatment. No reputable medical institution endorses any form of GCT. To quote the APA: "The most important fact about these 'therapies' is that they are
based on a view of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major mental
health professions...Despite the general consensus of major medical, health, and mental health professions that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality, efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public...Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation...Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful." [http://www.apa.org...] The AMA concurs. [http://www.ama-assn.org...?]

And sure, if GCT worked, then maybe you could write that is would be worthwhile "for said person to seek treatment." You'd still be incorrect, but at least there would be a basis in fact. GCT is totally ineffective. "A 2009 APA task force found that conversion therapies, despite being touted by religious organizations, have little evidence to back them up. A review of studies from 1960 to 2007 found only 83 on the topic, the vast majority of which did not have the experimental muscle to show whether the therapies achieved their stated goals...The best-quality studies were more recent and qualitative, the APA task force found...'These studies show that enduring change to an individual's sexual orientation is uncommon,' the task force wrote in their 2009 report. The participants continued to report same-sex attractions after the conversion therapy, and were not significantly more attracted to the opposite gender...These studies did find that conversion therapy could be harmful, however. Negative effects included 'loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality and anxiety.'" [http://www.livescience.com...]

"[A] peer-reviewed study of 202 respondents published in 2002, that 88% of participants failed to achieve a sustained change in their sexual behavior and 3% reported changing their orientation to heterosexual. The remainder reported either losing all sexual drive or attempting to remain celibate, with no change in attraction...Many respondents felt harmed by the attempt to change, and reported depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, hypervigilance of gender-deviant mannerisms, social isolation, fear of being a child abuser and poor self-esteem." [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

If the guardian believes that the child needs this to be accepted, is that not their duty?

A guardian has the obligation to act in the best interests of the child. It is not in any child's best interest to subject them to a highly ineffective "treatment," that is unsupported by reputable organizations and that is apt to actually harm the child.

Moreover, the "therapy" should be prohibited because it does harm. The FDA, for instance, does not allow drugs to go on the market that are totally ineffective, especially if those drugs are also harmful. GCT is both harmful and totally ineffective, and so it has no place as a legal "treatment" for anything. If need be, I can pull up articles describing the brutal, inhumane conditions often encountered by "patients" and the physical and psychological damage that was done to them while undergoing GCT.
I have ADHD. Society said I need to correct it. The treatment is to take a pill that makes me suicidal (well, not really, but it drives me insane due to my thoughts of death). Should this be banned, too?

Unlike ADHD, homosexuality doesn't impair functioning and isn't an illness. Moreover, you choose to take your medication. As I noted earlier, GCT is most often coercive, not voluntary. Finally, while there are acceptable risks in all medications, if the medication ONLY harms and has no or nearly no curative effect (like GCT), then it would and should be banned.

Moreover, if it is banned, it would be virtually impossible for scientific research in the subject to continue and maybe even find an effective form of conversion therapy.

Why should people be cured of being gay?
Why should they be cured of any affliction or deviation of the mind? I know what you are getting at, but think about how arrogant it actually is. Being gay is okay, but being X, Y, Z is not. Who are you to tell others how to feel about themselves?

As the evidence above shows, modern medical experts no longer view it as a "deviation." At the very least, it's not a harmful deviation--it's not worth stigmatizing people. Being left-handed is a "deviation," but shocking people with electrodes to get them to be right-handed would not acceptable. As for that last question, I don't even see how it's relevant.

Should we, in a similar vein, cure people of being Black or Asian?
Skin-tone, no. If you are talking about culture or mentality, we do this all the time.

Okay, so if skin tone is not something that should be "cured," then why is homosexuality something that should be "cured?"

Should we be pursuing science that would allow us to mold everyone into "better" people, as determined a heteronormative, WASP culture?
First, that is what society does.

Not really. We don't force Black people to change their skin tone by using medical techniques. We don't experiment on Jews like Mengele to rid them of their negative qualities. Sure, society places pressure on people to conform, but there are clear areas where that tendency is abused, and GCT is one of those areas.

Bsh, much as I detest you, I agree.