The whole homosexuality debate (Page 3)

You know what, I'm a white heterosexual male, and I don't need protective laws.....and if you are too, you don't either.  I'm sure there is a tipping point somewhere, and I don't have any doubt we will find it......but in the meantime, I'm good. 

I'm more than happy to make my own way, and I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of people are too.....but let's not pretend that we, as white heterosexual males, are somehow discriminated against.....because that's laughable.  I have no white male heterosexual guilt....believe it....but I'm more than fine with people thinking we've had it pretty damn good for pretty damn long. 

Everyone else is more than welcome to come and get it as far as I'm concerned....and I'm ok with some laws to make sure the bigoted morons of the world don't get in the way.

Thank you for responding, as I realized that by using the word "laws" I was getting at something different than what I actually meant. Rather than hate crimes, I was referring more to death benefits recognized by the federal government. For example, unless I'm mistaken, if you're in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, you're not eligible for social security benefits from your partner

Our sexuality is so complex that there's just not one mold that fits any of us.  I completely agree that you do not choose to have a SSA any more than I choose to be attracted to women.  I'll even take it further in that I don't choose to be attracted to the type of women that I'm attracted to, but at least with that I feel that nurture is in play because I know of certain key interactions in my early childhood that have influenced the type of women that I'm attracted to.
I can extrapolate a little and say that my attraction to women developed in a similar manner only at a younger age, but obviously I have no way to prove it.  In all my research I feel it's a combination of nurture and nature that determines our sexual orientation, but I do feel that nurture has a greater influence. (just my opinion of course)

Did you like wrestling?

What do you think I was referring to when I mentioned "key interactions in my early childhood"  ;-)

Yeah, but did you like Olympic style wrestling, Greco Roman,  or WWF style?   The importance of this in your development can't be understated. 

WWF of course

Nothing better then breaking a chair over your buddies head .  It's a great reliever of stress.

HA!!!  The crazy thing is how similar those two crowds look. 

Did they pass a law, or did the courts just create a new precedent?  Only reason I ask is because you state they're the first "state to outlaw" and "courts upheld" which are a little bit different.

So, my issue with the banning of "gay conversion therapy" is how broad it tends to be worded in legislation in other areas.  Homosexuality is extremely broad in how people are effected so it's really hard and unfair to lump everyone together.

For example I have worked with people in sex addiction therapy who were attracted to women, but they were severely messed up in their sexual development to the point that they were always chasing the next "high" by getting more and more risky in their sexual behaviors.  Some of these sexual behaviors manifested into same sex intercourse because of the "taboo" nature that increased the high for them.  In these cases, the individuals sought out counseling to stop the high risk sexual behaviors which included homosexual behaviors.  In most of the legislation I've seen introduced this treatment would be "outlawed" because it's considered "conversion therapy" when it's nothing of the sort and is extremely helpful in some cases.

The other example is when there are people who truly do have a same sex attraction that, for whatever reason, want to change on their own initiative.  In the Church, I've seen examples of people who genuinely do have a life long SSA who have come to believe in and follow the Christian doctrine which includes not partaking in homosexual activity.  They choose to try and develop tools to avoid acting on their desires and seek out counseling.  This is the nasty "conversion therapy" that we often hear of in the media, but if a person seeks it out because they want to try and change I don't see what the big deal is and why it should be outlawed.
There's no question there are differences of opinion as to someone with a SSA not acting on their behaviors versus embracing them, but I don't feel it's right for our legislature to make an individuals choice for them.
A good friend of mine who is a pastor in our church went through a "conversion therapy" in California several years ago.  He still has a SSA and always will, but he has developed, through therapy, an attraction towards women as well and ultimately married a woman.  He does a lot of speaking on the topic and is very real about it, but shouldn't he be able to choose that path if he wants to?  Why should our lawmakers mandate by law, that he not be able to do what he did and live the lifestyle he wants?

Now, I know there are horror stories of conversion therapy out there where parents force their kids into freaky programs.  There are also some ridiculous techniques that I've heard about that are very much harmful, so in that sense I am just as opposed to "conversion therapy" as most people, but I feel those are the minority of programs.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense or not, but I really dislike it when people (especially lawmakers) treat a group of individuals as though they're all the same and then legislate things to make them all conform to the preconceived belief of how they should live their life.  In America I can choose to pierce my face with a bolt, so why can't I chose to go to therapy to try and become gay or straight if I'm a consenting adult?  Why does big brother have to legislate my morality?

Wait.....what? 

Naw.....you aren't making sense to me.  I'm sure you have a point, and I'd like to hear it, but I'm not tracking you on this one.  "Conversion Therapy" sounds like some bullchit to me.  Something parents put their kids through in order for them to "get straightened out".  I guess it shouldn't be outlawed.....but I'm trying to imagine one of my kids coming to me to say they are gay and me recommending "conversion therapy".  There's just no way.....no way in hell I'm doing that.

And.....are you trying to convince me that there is therapy that people actually undergo to become gay??? That sounds pretty disingenuous......who does that?  That's sounds like some made up crap to justify "conversion therapy" for gay people.  How about we just leave them alone?  What's wrong with that?

My point was more along the lines of not putting homosexuality (or any sexuality) into a single box and then legislate based on that by taking peoples choices away.

I'm completely with you in not supporting forced "conversion therapy" because that's stupid and more importantly very harmful.  However, some people who have a lifelong same sex attraction are profoundly uncomfortable with it and want to seek out counseling.  if they want to try and change on their own initiative I don't see why we feel so morally empowered to force them not to by taking this choice away.  

New Jersey legislature wrote the law, Christie signed it, a Christian counseling group challenged it in court, and the court upheld it.  And the law specifically only bans the conversion of minors, so adults are still free to try and pray the gay away all they want. 

As for the bolded part, I mean, good luck to your friend and his wife, but that doesn't sound to me like a marriage built on a strong foundation. If my wife had an attraction to women, still was attracted to women, and required counseling just to find some attraction to me, then I'm going to pass on getting in to a serious relationship with her.  I'm not judging, for all I know his marriage may very well be way stronger than mine. It just throws up some really big red flags. But I fully support their right to choose who they wanted marry. 

Got it...thanks.

Thanks for the info on the NJ case, I didn't have time to look up any of the info.  The way you describe it I could get behind legislation like that.  forced anything is rarely good when it comes to faith, sexuality, or anything else.

I know what you're saying on my buddy and so far things are great.  In a sense, we all have some desires we have to suppress when we're married and some are riskier than others.  In my own case, I'd love to go have sex with other women outside of my marriage but I suppress that urge (as do most people).  I know there are a lot of bi-sexual people who marry one sex or the other and have "urges" to partake with the same/opposite sex, but I would imagine the urges would be dealt with similarly to mine and there is certainly counseling to help with those things.

On a slight tangent, when I talk to young folks getting married I always emphasize just about everything besides sex because sex can come and go in a marriage and should in no way be a foundation item.  If you're only married to Bob or Sally because she's great in the sack, then you're in big trouble.  So, if people are truly in love because they're best friends and the sex is a very minor portion of the relationship I could see where SSA could be managed inside a Hetero relationship.

I agree completely and I guess I sometimes get a little sensitive in how "conversion therapy" is depicted because it's a fairly broad and sometimes overused term.  
With most traditional sexual based therapy there isn't ever really a "cure", it's simply a matter of identifying where unwanted behaviors started and equipping the individual with tools to not act on the urges.  I've worked with pedophiles, ephebophiles, cheaters, beastophiles, promiscuity, you name it. and those types of unwanted behaviors can usually be identified back to a source and coped with, but not cured.  With SSA, it's much much earlier than any of those behaviors and nobody really knows what "causes it".  No matter if it's nature or nurture, I don't feel that it would be any different in that the behavior surely can't be "cured" at any age.  Can people choose not to partake in same sex activities and get counseling to help them?  Absolutely.  Should a company advertise and profit by promoting a "cure"? Absolutely not.

Tony - in your experience, can someone be "cured" of pedophilia?  The only thing I ever see is repeat offenders.  Admittedly, I'm not on the rehab end.....I don't see any.  Almost without exception, it's a repeat offender we end up dealing with.

I define cured in that the individual no longer has any sexual urges or attraction to children and is essentially the same as any other healthy individual.  In that context, absolutely not because they have developed an attraction that won't just "go away" no matter how much therapy they have.  They can however learn to cope with their urges so that they never act out on them again which can have the same effect as a "cure" to society.

It is also a lot more complex than simply coping with desires because there are pedophiles that desire younger people and cross the line by downloading pictures or peeking through windows for example.   These individuals have an extremely low recidivism rate from a legal standpoint because they learn very quickly and easily that acting on their behavior was very bad.  Most of these people don't have sociopathic behaviors so there is often genuine remorse which results in a much lower recidivism rate.
In contrast people who commit physical violent acts have issues far beyond just being pedophiles and their recidivism rate is higher because they're a whole lot further gone. If you're a sociopathic pedophile, then you need to be put away for life.  Without remorse and knowing right from wrong, these individuals are ticking time bombs and I'm even scared to death to be around them.

I respectfully disagree.  There's no question that the religious community is very vocal in opposition to homosexuality because it's counter to their religious beliefs and religious folks often feel it's being forced upon them.  For example a Christian church being forced to conduct same sex marriages.

Here are a few articles discussing some secular arguments against homosexuality.  I'm not saying I agree or disagree with them, I'm just pointing out that there are debate points outside of religion on the subject.

http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/01/ten_non-religious_reasons_to_keep_marriage_traditional.html

Personally, I feel that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.  Let people do commitment ceremonies, church marriages, or whatever they want and then give them the ability to file a civil union with the government to gain all the same legal rights.  Gender doesn't even need to come into the discussion with the government.  I think the civil union law should be along the lines of forming a union with any single non-related individual.  bam, lets all sing kumbaya.