LGBTQ+ Rights and America

If someone comes up with a method that actually works, then that hypothesis, which I personally do mostly agree with, would be proven wrong, so, if someone actually does come up with a method that actually works, then your first argument holds no merit.

As for the second one, there could be many reasons. Maybe the person wants to know how it feels like to have a different orientation, and is planning on changing back later. Maybe the person's romantic orientation is different from his/her sexual orientation, and he/she has fallen in love with someone they are not sexually attracted to, and want to change to be with that person. Whatever the reasons are, why should they be stopped from changing?

Also, I'm not talking about dishonest practices. I'm talking about ones that would actually work.

But why should we stop people from going through a therapy that works? I mean, stopping them from going through one that doesn't or that is inhumane in it's practices to achieve the end or is abusive in how it does things I can see, and I'm all for legislating that those don't happen, but I'm against legislation that would prevent actually effective methods from being implemented.

"But why should we stop people from going through a therapy that works?"

Why should we allow them? There is no real reason for them to change there orientation,so there just needesly f*cking around with science. I hate how people use science to "fix" every imaginary "flaw" they think they have.

edited 8th Oct '12 6:40:17 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

I gave a couple of reasons, but, to me, the reason why is unimportant, as long as no coercion is involved. They should be allowed to do it because A: there is no harm to others from them going through a legitimate conversion therapy that is safe and humane, and B: there is no harm to them from the, going through a legitimate conversion therapy that is safe and humane. There would be no harm in them doing it, so, unless you can give me a good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do it, they should be allowed to do it.

You could make that argument for a lot of things that people attempt to change about themselves, Deviant Braeburn. If an orientation is actually causing people distress or inconvenience, and they want it changed, and this change is possible, why shouldn't they?

People 'fuck around with' their bodies all the time and we let them.

edited 8th Oct '12 6:49:42 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

Simple it gives the illusion that theirs something that needs to be to be changed. And it furthers the idea that that science should be used to change our individual characteristics (not legitimate flaws mind you).

If you can't give me a legitimate reason why this conversion sh*t should exist then we are at a moral disagreement which is practically a stalemate.

God help us all if someone makes a market around changing your sexual orientation.

"People 'fuck around with' their bodies all the time and we let them. "

And you don't think I wish we didn't?

edited 8th Oct '12 6:57:49 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

How would we know it's the orientation that is causing them problems and not American society's animosity towards non-heterosexuality? Has anyone heard of a straight person wanting to be turned gay?

edited 8th Oct '12 6:58:26 PM by Morgikit

...No, it just gives them the option to if they want to. It doesn't make it seem any more necessary than the invention of the shaver made being clean shaven seem any more necessary.

Also, I don't see what's wrong with using science to change something we want to change.

This. Has there ever been a single legitimate case of someone generally disliking there sexual orientation.

And even if there has the person should receive therapy that makes them comfortable with there perfectly tait not "conversion" into something there not.

edited 8th Oct '12 7:01:47 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

I had actually encountered a person online (an artist I follow on dA) who said that, in her younger years, she had been rather disappointed to realise that she was straight and not gay or bi. I think that was because she equated it with being more open-minded, and felt that she would be excluded from the 'culture'.

Be not afraid...

I don't see what would be so terrible about giving people the option of becoming gay, or straight, or bi, or asexual.

I could imagine that this would be useful for straight preists. Being Asexual would make their lives much easier.

The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.

Likewise, I've met more than a few asexuals online who wished they could have a sex drive.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

I'll be blunt, I don't trust humanity enough to use something that could change your sexual orientation responsibly. Not in the slightest.

So did she realize how stupid she had been when she was younger?

edited 8th Oct '12 7:10:51 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

How would someone "responsibly" or "irresponsibly" change their orientation?

edited 8th Oct '12 7:13:41 PM by deathpigeon

Deathpigeon, two competing hypotheses here.

1. People who are uncomfortable with their orientation can change it, at the behavioural and neurochemical level.
2. People who are uncomfortable with their orientation are actually mistaken about their orientation. You aren't helping a gay person turn straight, you're helping a straight person who mistakenly thought they were gay rediscover that they're really straight.

Before we continue the discussion, tell me: how would you test to find out if one of those two hypotheses are true?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

A couple sessions with a professional therapist?

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Second case does not factor in external forces toward discomfort. Society might say they should be uncomfortable, so they feel they must. The thing to change in that scenario is society.

edited 8th Oct '12 7:17:34 PM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

First, could you please not capitalize my name?

Second, I don't think there is any way to conclusively prove the second one true, and the only way to conclusively prove the first one true would be to create an effective method of changing one's orientation. However, that is no reason to assume one or the other to be true, and, to my knowledge, there is more evidence to support the second one than the first.

Basically, the only test I can think of is creating an effective method of changing one's orientation, which would prove the first to be true and the second to be false. Other than that, there is no real test for either hypothesis that I can think of.

Then aren't we focusing a little too much on "what if" rather than what is?

That's the thing, we don't know for certain what actually is. We have a running hypothesis with a lot of evidence pointing toward it being true and a competing hypothesis with less evidence pointing toward it being true. I subscribe to the hypothesis that sexual orientation is something innate that cannot be changed, but I do not dismiss the possibility that the hypothesis that sexual orientation isn't something innate and can be changed, and I feel that it would be irresponsible to dismiss either hypothesis until more research is done and there is more evidence one way or another.

I thought it was understood that we were debating based on the assumption that one's orientation could be changed by some... magical therapeutic procedure or something, and that doing so was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be beneficial to a specific subset of people.

I find both of those ideas to be incredibly implausible given what we know about sexuality right now, but this is an entirely speculative discussion based on some unlikely assumptions, or so I thought.

edited 8th Oct '12 7:51:42 PM by HilarityEnsues

I was only debating with the first one being assumed, and I believe that the assumption isn't so unlikely, based upon what we know, that we should discount it entirely.

Also, I should note that I haven't been talking about a technique that can change one's orientation from gay to straight, but, rather, a technique that can change one's orientation from whatever to whatever.

And, in that situation, I'd say that we should not prevent people from having access to a humane method of changing their orientation, by which I mean a method that doesn't involve stuff like torture and abuse like current techniques that attempt to change orientation do.

re: your name, I'm a professional editor and it was the first letter of the sentence. I found it extremely hard not to insert a "d" to make it "pidgeon".

Anyways, the hypotheses can be tested: if orientation is static, and 'fixing' people just means making them realize what they always were, than the best treatment methods will involve teaching subjects to know themselves better, and accept who they are. If orientation is changeable, those treatment methods won't be effective, because they'd just lead the subject back to who they already are and are currently dissatisfied with. Also, what Fast Eddie said; there's another factor to control for there.

I'm referring to testing which hypothesis better describes human sexual psychology in general. (I'm also making the error in assuming that fluidity isn't an orientation - that is, most of the population is 2, but there is a subset for whom 1 is the case, and their sexual orientation does not remain static.)

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

That's true, they can be tested, but not conclusively proven.

However, I'm no psychologist or sociologist, so I have no clue how.

It ain't easy. And, from what I've been reading in the various papers... not doable quickly or concretely (in ways some people seem to want in black and white) unless you want to break the ethical codes good and hard.

<note: this is meant as acute sarcasm> What we need are some good, old fashioned, stuff like this. <end sarcasm>

Please note: this kind of thing is what conversion therapy generally gets its methods from: there are military experiments that are not open open to the public, at present, from the same time periods which also form a part of how they do things. Well, that and a few extras gained from Nazi and Japanese camps. Enjoy the thought: Conversion Therapy, in its current state, is nothing short of torture and psychological warfare.

And, Psychology can't find the answers as quickly as some would like, because we try not to do this type of thing anymore when looking for answers. And, therapies that used methods gained from such heinous practices of the past really need to be questioned and stopped. Until safer means are found using the slow way... cease and desist. It's the ethical choice.

And, on behalf of the social sciences, I apologise if using ethical methods is too slow, messy or reliant on debatable statistics you need a college course to follow. You're just going have to deal with it. Unless you want things like the above done in the name of "science" when looking for what is there to be found.

edited 9th Oct '12 3:03:40 AM by Euodiachloris