Gay "in denial"....and Gay-to-straight theraphy

Sleipnir · December 15, 2012

Gay Rights Movement and their fanatical followers have their own agenda on this issue. Their method is manipulatively dishonest and dictatorial in scope.

Gay Rights Movement and followers want to make the decision for all. And they do play dirty.

That because the therapy is bogus and doesn't do anything! It takes advantage of those who needs true counseling.

WIP · December 15, 2012

[q

Edited December 15, 2012 by WIP

WIP · December 15, 2012

No, but I read what you wrote!

To you and Bonam, if gays are allowed to get married and to adopt children, or use a surrogate as in the case of a lesbian couple I met five years ago - how are they diminished or deprived by their sexual attractions?

Think before you start typing at the keyboard! If a man is a homosexual, he does not want to get married to a woman unless he is attempting to hide it from friends and family. Same with a woman who's a lesbian. If she's sure that she does not want to marry a man, then how exactly would gays be deprived in a culture that recognized their relationships?

Edited December 15, 2012 by WIP

WIP · December 15, 2012

Right. They live in a vacuum. Society doesn't influence their interpretation of the "proper" family an shame them for wanting anything different.

Right. On a slightly different subject, CBC Radio had an episode awhile back on the series "Ideas" which featured psychologists and sociologists debating the nature vs. nurture claims regarding gender identity between men and women. In the last 10 years, there have been a flurry of popular books using brain imaging as evidence, which make varying claims about the degrees to which men and women are "hardwired" to follow typical masculine and feminine behavioural patterns from early childhood right through to adulthood. But what neuroscientists and evolutionary psychologists today are doing, is mostly cross-referencing social facts with the data from brain development, and concluding that the end results are natural and unalterable.

And I'm not just talking about girls-play-with-dolls/boys-play-with-toysoldiers story. Back when I was young, there were relatively few women in high positions in scientific fields and engineering, and the story went that girls are naturally better at communication skills than boys and should concentrate their efforts in the humanities and leave the hard sciences for the boys...because those fields required more complex math skills that girls were not naturally adept at. Not many people have commented in the public arena that what was then a time-honored assumption about men and women has been turned on its head in the last 10 to 20 years, as girls are overtaking boys in higher education...including math, and even outnumbering males in engineering. The only time we here about this issue now, it's usually framed that the education system is more female-friendly and boys are being discouraged from learning at an early age. At least this is the BS that's put out by some social re-engineers who are pushing the notion of same-sex schools again. They even started a pilot project on same sex education in public schools in my city - Hamilton, if it's still running.

What the gender controversies show, is similar to the ones about same-sex issues, the default position is invariably that our culture is natural as it is at the present, and does not need to be changed, nor should be allowed to change with the times. I used to follow a lot of those assumptions myself, but these days I find myself swimming upstream and bucking another presumption that comes with age -- that we become more conservative and averse to new and different ideas as we grow older.

Sleipnir · December 15, 2012

What the gender controversies show, is similar to the ones about same-sex issues, the default position is invariably that our culture is natural as it is at the present, and does not need to be changed, nor should be allowed to change with the times.

Cultures undergoes changes all the time, what are you talking about?

December 15, 2012

No, but I read what you wrote!

You may have read it, but it doesn't come across as if you comprehended it.

To you and Bonam, if gays are allowed to get married and to adopt children, or use a surrogate as in the case of a lesbian couple I met five years ago - how are they diminished or deprived by their sexual attractions?

I wasn't speaking of my feelings. I never so much as insinuated that I think they are diminished or deprived. Being a heterosexual, it's not about me. I was speaking of the gays who feel that way - their change of expectations - and the unhappiness that sometimes follows.

Think before you start typing at the keyboard! If a man is a homosexual, he does not want to get married to a woman unless he is attempting to hide it from friends and family.

No, he doesn't. But if he spent the years before the realization that he's gay wanting to have a wife and children with her, then it sometimes results in unhappiness along with the change in expectations.

Same with a woman who's a lesbian. If she's sure that she does not want to marry a man, then how exactly would gays be deprived in a culture that recognized their relationships?

Again. I'm not talking about recognition of the gay relationship. I'm speaking of those who are unhappy that what they had expected wasn't their reality.

g_bambino · December 17, 2012

Thinking out loud?

Er... I was trying to say I concede your point, if I understood it correctly.

g_bambino · December 17, 2012

Gay Rights Movement and followers want to make the decision for all. And they do play dirty.

Just like the Christian fundamentalists, no? Each on either side thinks they know best what other people either really are or really should be.

Black Dog · December 17, 2012

Some people like WIP and Black Dog want to pretend that there are not certain biological limitations at play there

Although they may be right: I'm pretty sure as soon as its technologically possible the Canadian healthcare system will cover the needed medical procedures for two gay men to have a baby together, free of charge.

Gay people can have kids. They need a person of the opposite sex to facilitate the process, but my original statement stands.

There does seem to be a need to for some to blame any unhappiness regarding sexual preferences on society. It's more than the biological limitations, though - it's the expectations they themselves have grown up with; that they'll marry a member of the opposite sex, and have a 'traditional' family - the traditional way.

And of course, those expectations are with them from birth.

cybercoma · December 17, 2012

Just like the Christian fundamentalists, no? Each on either side thinks they know best what other people either really are or really should be.

Theoretically, "gay rights" followers would be saying individuals need to be able to decide for themselves what is best for them. In other words, if someone wants to love someone of the same sex, that's their decision and nobody should stand in the way of that. So what the "gay rights" advocates are doing is trying to prevent people from imposing their singular view of what's "proper" on others.

g_bambino · December 17, 2012

[W]hat the "gay rights" advocates are doing is trying to prevent people from imposing their singular view of what's "proper" on others.

I doubt all are so embracing of free choice; especially the militant ones. (I know this is anecdotal, but) I have personally heard and read on blogs and in Xtra and such people who identify as "gay" and advocate more "gay rights" for "gays" make entirely presumptuous decisions for others what those others' sexual pracitces, preferences, and identities are: "oh, he's soooo in the closet"; "anyone who says they're bisexual is [in denial] [confused] [a liar]"; "she's just saying she's a lesbian 'cause she wants to piss off her parents"; and so on, often in more subtle, indirect ways. It's so incredibly ironic coming from people who say they've fought and still fight against being told what life to live and way to identify (*cough*... [whisper]Dan Savage[/whisper]... *cough*...). I don't see that as being so far off what's said by the Christians who adamantly deny the naturalness of homosexuality (because of one line in the Bible) and hence have concluded that anyone who sees themselves as "gay" or even "bi" (synonyms to many God-devotees) simply see themselves incorrectly.

[ed.: +]

Edited December 17, 2012 by g_bambino

cybercoma · December 17, 2012

Those examples you give are not things I've ever heard from anyone in the gender equality and sexuality rights communities. In fact, those that I know in those communities get extremely upset at people who deny bisexuality as its own thing. In fact, I've tried explaining at length here that sexuality is not a binary and that's the position most of those advocates take. Moreover, no one in those communities would take it upon themselves to define another's sexuality. It's considered incredibly insensitive. Specifically to the point that this stems from, I don't know a single person in these communities that would tell anyone who they should or should not marry, save for children who cannot give consent. The advocates are pushing for people to be free to express their sexuality in any manner they so choose. It's those that are against gay marriage that are trying to impose something on others, not vice versa. In fact, a common mantra is "Don't like gay marraige? Don't have one."

betsy · December 17, 2012

Obviously you didn't bother reading my post. You should be agreeing with me.

I apologise, Jbg. I got it wrong.

g_bambino · December 17, 2012

Those examples you give are not things I've ever heard from anyone in the gender equality and sexuality rights communities... [N]o one in those communities would take it upon themselves to define another's sexuality. It's considered incredibly insensitive... It's those that are against gay marriage that are trying to impose something on others, not vice versa....

I'm certainly not denying there are people who are active in the gender equality and/or sexuality rights campaigns who fully accept that it is not their right to decide for anyone else what their true identity is and pressure that someone (even in indirect ways) to see themselves the "right" way (accept what they "really" are, if you rather). But I can't deny my own experiences, which have shown me there are people who identify themselves as "gay" and who, whether they're deeply involved in the fight for "gay" rights or merely just a supporter, will say things that expose a feeling on their part that they know what the preferences, activities, and identities of certain others really are. They're the kind (and they exist among people who identify as "straight", too) who'll say about a man who's married to a woman but has also had sex with other men (I was going to reverse all the genders for the example, but didn't want to further complicate this subject with the whole unfounded and imbalanced but popular women's-sexuality-is-naturally-more-flexible-than-men's thing) that he's in denial and should just accept his "natural" state as a "gay" man and thus divorce his wife and find a nice man (or men). That's as much an imposition on someone else's relationships as are the Christians who say a man who identifies as "gay" is in denial of his "natural" ("Godly") state as "straight" man and should thus not even be allowed to marry another man, since he should just find a nice woman to settle down with.

betsy · December 18, 2012

cybercoma, on 17 December 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:
Those examples you give are not things I've ever heard from anyone in the gender equality and sexuality rights communities... [N]o one in those communities would take it upon themselves to define another's sexuality. It's considered incredibly insensitive..

Well, trying to stop or dissuade an adult person who's unhappy being gay to seek therapy....and telling him that he is gay, and should stay gay, is defining another's sexuality. What if he's not truly gay, and just thinks he is? Whether to seek therapy or not, he should be able to make the choice.

December 18, 2012

You can't stop people going to a therapist. You can't stop them going to a palm reader, either.

Mighty AC · December 18, 2012

Well, trying to stop or dissuade an adult person who's unhappy being gay to seek therapy....and telling him that he is gay, and should stay gay, is defining another's sexuality. What if he's not truly gay, and just thinks he is? Whether to seek therapy or not, he should be able to make the choice.

Your watered down, narrow point about choice is meaningless. It's like the KKK convincing black people that they are immoral and offering to paint them white. What about that sad black man who is unhappy about being black? Shouldn't he be able to choose to be white? So what if the therapy is a hoax and he'll just be wearing makeup. The important thing is that he has mentally freed himself from the black agenda that is trying to make it acceptable to be black. We're not buying that BS that people are just born that way. They start listening to rap music, watching NBA games and next thing you know they're black.

Sleipnir · December 18, 2012

Well, trying to stop or dissuade an adult person who's unhappy being gay to seek therapy....and telling him that he is gay, and should stay gay, is defining another's sexuality. What if he's not truly gay, and just thinks he is?

You have no idea how sexual orientation works. I'll give an example, tell me betsy, are you happy being umm....whatever sexual orientation you are?

Edited December 18, 2012 by Sleipnir

cybercoma · December 18, 2012

Well, trying to stop or dissuade an adult person who's unhappy being gay to seek therapy....and telling him that he is gay, and should stay gay, is defining another's sexuality. What if he's not truly gay, and just thinks he is? Whether to seek therapy or not, he should be able to make the choice.

Yet you still haven't responded to me about the tortured straight people that just want to be gay, but they need therapy to realize that. How come you're not standing up for them too?

g_bambino · December 18, 2012

Your watered down, narrow point about choice is meaningless.

Well, trying to tell somone they are "gay" is pretty arrogant. However, so is telling someone they're "straight", which is what that "therapy" is all about.

cybercoma · December 18, 2012

It may not be about telling someone that they're gay though. It might be about providing support and empowerment for individuals that are afraid to be themselves. You don't need to support someone who's straight because society already supports them. It's absurd to think that someone would be so damaged from oppression that they are quite simply petrified of admitting that they are straight. However, that's the reality for many gay people trying to live a straight life. So in many ways telling someone they're gay and in denial is a way of offering support and letting them know that they don't have to repress their feelings any longer.

Edited December 18, 2012 by cybercoma

betsy · December 18, 2012

Well, trying to tell somone they are "gay" is pretty arrogant. However, so is telling someone they're "straight", which is what that "therapy" is all about.

How would you know that therapy is all about telling them they're straight? I object to the "authoritative" claims and generalizations being made.

Like my quoted article said, not all gays seeking therapy seek to become straight. They seek "fulfillment" or "peace with themselves" etc..,

If a person is miserable, wouldn't any reputable therapist get to the bottom of what's causing the misery?

Edited December 18, 2012 by betsy

betsy · December 18, 2012

It seems that some intelligent people here could see the real issue being presented.....and yet they try to navigate delicately that they don't appear supporting my views on this issue (because of my faith). You can't be objective. Must be tough being in your situation when you are hindered to say what you think as exactly the way you see it. You're bound to trip and make yourself say self-destructive statements that only ends up hurting your credibility.

betsy · December 18, 2012

It may not be about telling someone that they're gay though. It might be about providing support and empowerment for individuals that are afraid to be themselves. You don't need to support someone who's straight because society already supports them. It's absurd to think that someone would be so damaged from oppression that they are quite simply petrified of admitting that they are straight. However, that's the reality for many gay people trying to live a straight life. So in many ways telling someone they're gay and in denial is a way of offering support and letting them know that they don't have to repress their feelings any longer.

Obviously we're talking about people with possible psychological issues. You are ignoring that fact.

Edited December 18, 2012 by betsy

cybercoma · December 18, 2012

Obviously we're talking about people with possible psychological issues. You are ignoring that fact.

No. The only person ignoring things are you. I've asked you repeatedly in this thread the exact same question and you've ignored it every single time, but here you are replying to posts I've made after it. So don't pretend like you haven't seen it.