Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Nah, they just haven't posted in this thread due to not noticing it/knowing exactly the reaction they'll get.

Yeah, but to be honest that's good enough for me. Whether we're at a point where people don't believe that nonsense, or still believe it but no longer have the stomach for claiming it in public for fear of the reaction they'll get, the end result is homophobia in terminal decline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
I know many of you will reject the juxtaposition given here without much second thought. My point is that sometimes laws like these do more harm than good when they infringe on one groups rights ostensibly to protect another group.

I've given it a second, third, and fourth thought. As I'm typing this I've just given it a fifth thought. And that fifth thought is that my thinking alone won't be able to reason through what you've stated in your post, and that maybe we need to commission a team of scientists to give it thoughts 6 through 28, and then write about a thousand of pages of text on it.

Because as near as I can tell, your post is equating the right of one person to inflict a psychologically harmful practice on a minor, with another person's right to be told what they do with another consenting adult is no-one's business but their own, and worrying that possibly the rights of the former group trump the latter. That's a simply incredible point of view, and one that demands many, many more thoughts.

 Polonius wrote:
There's an old joke:

"What do you call alternative medicine that has been shown to work?"

"Medicine"

'Profit'.
Some alternative medicines are bogus, others do work but are not mainstream.
The above joke, which is a political comment of itself is based on the mistaken belief that the medical profession is united as to what is canonic medicine. Corporate medicine in particular will odften favour one approach over another for financial reasons also some medical procedures, accupuncture being a good example have direct provable effects but it is not understood why sio it remains alternative medicine.

This is not nearly as monstrous or noteworthy as some of the stories we've had on here, like the strike team story awhile back.
I condemn those who would make thier peers with a differing orientation out to be sick.

 Orlanth wrote:
The above joke, which is a political comment of itself is based on the mistaken belief that the medical profession is united as to what is canonic medicine. Corporate medicine in particular will odften favour one approach over another for financial reasons also some medical procedures, accupuncture being a good example have direct provable effects but it is not understood why sio it remains alternative medicine.

Except that once they have direct, provable effects, they actually do stop being treated as alternative medicine. Accupuncture is a good example, as studies have shown its effectiveness then many places around the world have started to cover its use.

The issue is more that medical boards, for very obvious reasons, like to be fairly certain of the effects of treatment before embracing it, and so a person can get ahead of the curve and learn about alternative remedies years, or even decades before they're recognised. The trick then is how confident an individual can be in picking the winners from the junk.

There's also political issues, as well, particularly with things like marijuana.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Iranna wrote:
Sigh, I really don't understand why where one person wishes to put their genitals can cause such uproar.

So you have no issue whatsoever with where people want to put their genitals?

As long as It ain't children, animal or dead, I don't give a crap.

Also, Bonobo Monkeys,Dolphins and Giraffes engage in homosexuality, and you don't see them setting up "therapy" centres do you?

Although, for what it's worth, bonobos engage in everything.


...everything...

 Goliath wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Iranna wrote:
Sigh, I really don't understand why where one person wishes to put their genitals can cause such uproar.

So you have no issue whatsoever with where people want to put their genitals?

As long as It ain't children, animal or dead, I don't give a crap.

Also, Bonobo Monkeys,Dolphins and Giraffes engage in homosexuality, and you don't see them setting up "therapy" centres do you?

What if it's a flaming dead tree? I've always had to keep my pyronecrodendrophillia in check, lest I rush off to a wildfire to get my rocks off...

Also Dolphins also engage in sex with humans, sometimes as the dominant partner... on an unrelated note, don't day drink with your roommate the day before you leave for winter break and watch Flipper movies... you will both ask, "I wonder if anyone has ever had sex with a dolphin" and then google such a question.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The above joke, which is a political comment of itself is based on the mistaken belief that the medical profession is united as to what is canonic medicine. Corporate medicine in particular will odften favour one approach over another for financial reasons also some medical procedures, accupuncture being a good example have direct provable effects but it is not understood why sio it remains alternative medicine.

Except that once they have direct, provable effects, they actually do stop being treated as alternative medicine. Accupuncture is a good example, as studies have shown its effectiveness then many places around the world have started to cover its use.

The issue is more that medical boards, for very obvious reasons, like to be fairly certain of the effects of treatment before embracing it, and so a person can get ahead of the curve and learn about alternative remedies years, or even decades before they're recognised. The trick then is how confident an individual can be in picking the winners from the junk.

There's also political issues, as well, particularly with things like marijuana.

I wouldn't get too carried away with the idea that acupuncture is a proven treatment, though.

Here's a pretty good read on the subject.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-d-braunstein-md/evaluating-the-clinical-e_b_758343.html

Chronic pain treatments often work for bizarre reasons, because chronic pain is such a complex and layered issue.

The best medications for Fibromyalgia (the mother of all nebulous pain disorders) are an anti-depressant and anti-convulsant. The idea that sticking somebody with needles somehow makes them feel better is slightly less crazy.

What I find fascinating about that study (which i've seen references to before) is that while "sham" accupuncture also showed improved pain symtpoms over no acupuncture, the actual proper accupuncture did even better.

So, sure, the underlying theroies are almost assuradely balony. But so what? If it improves pain symptoms, we can worry about how and why later.

The biochemical functioning of anesthetic is actually quite difficult to pin down, even in agents which very clearly do work.

I have heard generally positive things about accupuncture in the literature (not really my field but it is generally discussed along side other strange treatments tangential to things I have studied).

However to get back on topic - it is good that these kinds of practices are being outlawed; hopefully similar "de-gay summer camp" type groups will also be heavily targeted and erradicated in the same move. I've heard some pretty horrific things about some of those places.

If you really want to feel good about the advanced state of medicine, then just pick up a Physicians Desk Reference and look at how all the drugs work.

You will be amazed (and disturbed) and how many of these entries you find:

PDR wrote:Mechanism of Action: Unknown. It is thought.....

We honestly don't know how a lot of the medications we give to people work. You take a pill, you get better, but we don't know why.

And sometimes quackery is 100% as effective as something approved after years of painstaking research and administered by somebody with 4 years of medical school and 6 years of residency because of one single reason: the person getting the treatment believes it is going to work.

And I have seen people die even though they got all the latest treatment and advances, simply because they knew "nothing will work, I am going to die".

I'm not saying that medicine is a total mind game. But the placebo effect is real and there is a distinct mind-body component to healing that is involved.

Should quackery be regulated to make sure people don't do dangerous things? Sure.
Do I encourage patients that are seeking holistic treatment to make sure they are doing that as a part of a comprehensive treatment plan that also includes "western medicine". Of course.

Of course that is all talking about physical treatments. Once you include alternative medicine for mental health issues (such as gay conversion therapy) things get even muddier and the potential of hurting a number of people for every "successful" treatment should be the determining factor for deciding the validity of treatments.

 motyak wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It was sarcasm Forar, I'm gay.

Wololo wololo wololo.

Kidding...

This cracked me up way more than it had any right to.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I will always remember the first time I saw naked breasts and decided "I will be straight".

I don't remember that day, I do remember the day I saw another man's penis and said, "I do not want that anywhere near me."

I have no idea what women could possibly like about 'em. Lucky for the human race, though, they do like 'em.

~Tim>

 Polonius wrote:
How is that an anti-Catholic bias?

Knowing how bright you are, I'm honestly not convinced that this is a sincere question. But I will answer anyway as part of the intentional avoidance of cynicism. The article technically distinguishes between disapproving of homosexual people and homosexual acts but conflates them for the purpose of criticizing Mr. Christie's view, which is acceptable to mainstream public opinion, as "inconsistent" with his Catholic faith. That is to say, Mr. Christie is right on this issue despite being a Catholic.

 Alfndrate wrote:
What if it's a flaming dead tree? I've always had to keep my pyronecrodendrophillia in check, lest I rush off to a wildfire to get my rocks off...

Also Dolphins also engage in sex with humans, sometimes as the dominant partner... on an unrelated note, don't day drink with your roommate the day before you leave for winter break and watch Flipper movies... you will both ask, "I wonder if anyone has ever had sex with a dolphin" and then google such a question.

I was another website and there was this guy, a younger fellow who posted a lot and was one of the better known posters on the site (and it was a big forum). He was always involved in the melodramas of the board and was pretty strange, but seemed a likeable enough guy.

After a while another guy turned up, and said he'd been invited over to the board by this fellow, who on that board went by some other name. Someone went over to that board and starting reading what he was posting there, and pretty much all of it was about sex with animals. And the animal he was mostly fixated on was dolphins. And he was fixated in really strange ways, insisting that dolphin spunk comes out so fast that it'd kill a human. He turned up and insisted there was nothing wrong with it. People started talking about how it was rape. Other people called for tolerance. The gak storm lasted weeks, over dozens of threads. Loads of people were banned (and this was a site where, at the time, it was really hard to get banned). It was incredible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I wouldn't get too carried away with the idea that acupuncture is a proven treatment, though.

Here's a pretty good read on the subject.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-d-braunstein-md/evaluating-the-clinical-e_b_758343.html

Oh, I'm not arguing for accupuncture. I've never had it, and most likely never will (if only because I'm really, really cheap when it comes to medical treatment of any kind ). I was just saying that pointing out that accupuncture is treated as alternative medicine outside despite being shown as effective isn't true, because it is actually covered like conventional treatment in places.

 sebster wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
What if it's a flaming dead tree? I've always had to keep my pyronecrodendrophillia in check, lest I rush off to a wildfire to get my rocks off...

Also Dolphins also engage in sex with humans, sometimes as the dominant partner... on an unrelated note, don't day drink with your roommate the day before you leave for winter break and watch Flipper movies... you will both ask, "I wonder if anyone has ever had sex with a dolphin" and then google such a question.

I was another website and there was this guy, a younger fellow who posted a lot and was one of the better known posters on the site (and it was a big forum). He was always involved in the melodramas of the board and was pretty strange, but seemed a likeable enough guy.

After a while another guy turned up, and said he'd been invited over to the board by this fellow, who on that board went by some other name. Someone went over to that board and starting reading what he was posting there, and pretty much all of it was about sex with animals. And the animal he was mostly fixated on was dolphins. And he was fixated in really strange ways, insisting that dolphin spunk comes out so fast that it'd kill a human. He turned up and insisted there was nothing wrong with it. People started talking about how it was rape. Other people called for tolerance. The gak storm lasted weeks, over dozens of threads. Loads of people were banned (and this was a site where, at the time, it was really hard to get banned). It was incredible.

I know far too much about dolphin/human relationships... I hadn't imbibed enough to black out and not remember any of it... The website that I found corroborated that guy's claim about dolphin baby making juice, as well as some other odd claims... I'm half tempted to go find it again, because as much as no one should EVER have that knowledge, it's a hilarious read.

Back on topic... Is there viable medical proof that gay conversion therapy (or conversion therapy for that matter) works? It seems more like a way to oppress and dehumanize someone... but I'm not a doctor, I just play one on the radio.

 Polonius wrote:
Chronic pain treatments often work for bizarre reasons, because chronic pain is such a complex and layered issue.

The best medications for Fibromyalgia (the mother of all nebulous pain disorders) are an anti-depressant and anti-convulsant. The idea that sticking somebody with needles somehow makes them feel better is slightly less crazy.

What I find fascinating about that study (which i've seen references to before) is that while "sham" accupuncture also showed improved pain symtpoms over no acupuncture, the actual proper accupuncture did even better.

So, sure, the underlying theroies are almost assuradely balony. But so what? If it improves pain symptoms, we can worry about how and why later.

I believe I read something once to the effect: The needles themselves are not particularly painful and they don't cause much of a conscious response. But they still cause very small amounts of pain. Because pain in one part of the body often distracts from pain elsewhere the story I read was that dozens of needles piercing the skin have a cumulative effect that we consciously don't recognize, distracting the 'patient' from their other discomforts.

I have no idea how scientific that is mind you. Just something I read.

I think employing dolphins to be involved in the gay conversion programs may have a considerable effect.

Seriously I think gay conversion to be similar to aversion therapy, I know someone who did a course , apparently jesus can walk on water but he can't un-gay someone.

Bullockist wrote:
I think employing dolphins to be involved in the gay conversion programs may have a considerable effect.

Hank Hill disagrees.

In all fairness, Hank was totally asking for it.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I know far too much about dolphin/human relationships... I hadn't imbibed enough to black out and not remember any of it... The website that I found corroborated that guy's claim about dolphin baby making juice, as well as some other odd claims... I'm half tempted to go find it again, because as much as no one should EVER have that knowledge, it's a hilarious read.

Yeah, this guy was convinced it was at such high speed it like punch right through a human, which was hilarious, and when people saying that wasn't true but it did come out pretty damn fast, and then typing up analogies about exactly how fast I stopped reading.

Back on topic... Is there viable medical proof that gay conversion therapy (or conversion therapy for that matter) works? It seems more like a way to oppress and dehumanize someone... but I'm not a doctor, I just play one on the radio.

What I've read is that there are basically zero cases of people who have only same sex attraction being converted and becoming attracted to the opposite sex - what short term results are claimed are dubious and in the long term you get some pretty messed up people.

But with people who show bi-sexual attraction there's been some success in moving people along the continuum, that is to say people who mostly like the opposite sex and the same sex only sometimes can be shifted to liking the same sex hardly ever. I have no idea if that effect lasts long term.

 sebster wrote:


Maybe we should just be glad that there is no-one here to defend gay conversion. I don't think that would have been the case a few years ago, where someone might at least have attempted an "I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's their right to do it" bit of nonsense. But now it looks like maybe the bottom really has collapsed out of homophobia. Hopefully, anyway.

This is a fallacial argument.

Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Maybe we should just be glad that there is no-one here to defend gay conversion. I don't think that would have been the case a few years ago, where someone might at least have attempted an "I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's their right to do it" bit of nonsense. But now it looks like maybe the bottom really has collapsed out of homophobia. Hopefully, anyway.

This is a fallacial argument.

Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".

GG

I dunno, I think if someone said 'I'm not a fan of homosexuality, and I personally disagree with it, but I wouldn't force someone who is gay to undergo damaging psychological trauma' then there'd be no problem.

 generalgrog wrote:
This is a fallacial argument.

Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".

GG

You can think and say plenty of things - I don't like rap and find most of the rap culture to be something I don't like. However, I am not going to cheer for "Rap conversion centres" where people's trousers are held up with a belt and they are played rock music at high volumes to "reeducate" them.

A personal opinion is fine, an attempt to force your views on others is not. Think that homosexuality is bad all you want; discuss your dislike of it with likeminded (or not) people all you want (in the appropriate setting if applicable), but don't start loading homosexuals onto the train to "reeducation camps" and try to claim the moral high ground or indeed the right to do such things.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
How is that an anti-Catholic bias?

Knowing how bright you are, I'm honestly not convinced that this is a sincere question. But I will answer anyway as part of the intentional avoidance of cynicism. The article technically distinguishes between disapproving of homosexual people and homosexual acts but conflates them for the purpose of criticizing Mr. Christie's view, which is acceptable to mainstream public opinion, as "inconsistent" with his Catholic faith. That is to say, Mr. Christie is right on this issue despite being a Catholic.

Thanks... I guess?

I"m trying to find a polite way to say that you're being super sensitive about this, and I"m struggling, so I'll just say that. I guess I didn't read anything hostile or inflammatory in the article. It seems like you're reading this as "Christie, despite the moral defect of being a Catholic, feels homosexuality is not a sin."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Maybe we should just be glad that there is no-one here to defend gay conversion. I don't think that would have been the case a few years ago, where someone might at least have attempted an "I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's their right to do it" bit of nonsense. But now it looks like maybe the bottom really has collapsed out of homophobia. Hopefully, anyway.

This is a fallacial argument.

Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".

Man, I feel you. When I have an opinion that's inconsistent with both science and the experiences of most people, it is really unfair when I get called out on it. Especially since there are a soild double handful of bible verses (out of 30k, but whatever) that prove that I'm right!

Honestly, society has been on a downward spiral ever since we started ignoring the biblical truth of geocentrism.

Thanks for proving my point. Polonius.

This is the typical...If you believe a certain way then you are an idiot..internet beat down.

Instead of the ...oh I don't know rational way of discussing things.


But again...point proven.

GG

Rationality kind of goes out the window when there's never once been a solid logical argument against gay rights, or the tolerance of gays.

 Fafnir wrote:
Rationality kind of goes out the window when there's never once been a solid logical argument against gay rights, or the tolerance of gays.

You just supported his point actually. "If you're opposed to me you're insane" ok...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Maybe we should just be glad that there is no-one here to defend gay conversion. I don't think that would have been the case a few years ago, where someone might at least have attempted an "I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's their right to do it" bit of nonsense. But now it looks like maybe the bottom really has collapsed out of homophobia. Hopefully, anyway.

This is a fallacial argument.

Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".

GG

I dunno, I think if someone said 'I'm not a fan of homosexuality, and I personally disagree with it, but I wouldn't force someone who is gay to undergo damaging psychological trauma' then there'd be no problem.

How about "I don't give a gak. Just stay off my yard."

 Frazzled wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Rationality kind of goes out the window when there's never once been a solid logical argument against gay rights, or the tolerance of gays.

You just supported his point actually. "If you're opposed to me you're insane" ok...

Exactly..(by the way fafnir completely misrepresented my position)

And to expand on the point...someone was suggesting because no one was on "dakka" giving the opposing position. That somehow means we all think it's ok, when in reality people choose to not chime in on dakka because they know they are going to get shouted down...or the internet version of it.

GG

Also we just don't care. Just stay out of our trees you steenking squirrel lovers!