Should a person be forced to change their sexual orientation?

[Jeff_Ricks]

[Note: I started this thread because there was some apparent concern that this forum has a policy against discussing homosexuality. Please let me assure you that that is absolutely not the case. Only when it's being discussed in ways the are felt to be disrespectful or belittling of the gay community do we feel that it violates the posting policy of this forum.]

Should a person be forced to change their sexual orientation? I say no. I think the most noble pursuit in life is to enjoy life, enjoy each moment, as long as doing so doesn't conflict with another's right to enjoy life.
We have evolved, or some might say have been created, to do what we are now doing -- experiencing life! From an evolutionary perspective an inconceivable amount of time and energy have been expended over the life of the universe to bring us to the point of being conscious of self and of our surrounding. We seem to be the culmination (in some respects) of creation in that we appear to be the most capable creatures on this planet to get maximum enjoyment out of life. I think it would be an incredible sin to waste all that has gone into bringing us to this point by suppressing what gives us joy and pleasure. Of course it would also be an incredible sin to do things that deny others of that right (and responsibility to self and creation). If I were forced to change my 'god-given' sexual preference for women that would severely impact my enjoyment of life. So no, I don’t think a person should be forced to change their sexual preference, nor do I think they truly can change it. I think they can only be trained to fool themselves. Of course there are some who’s sexual preference is both – they might bounce back an forth across the gender line. Forcing them to decide one or the other would also be a sin (IMHO).

Any other thoughts?

Jeff

[wescape]

There are very few things I think anyone should be forced to do, especially in a society like ours. Obviously, we need the legal/justice system to ensure our civil rights, protect us from harm, and enforce consequences for those who break the law, but that is the only thing I can think of that should be "forced."

The issue of homosexuality is a touchy one and apparently that was evidenced by the fact that the other thread was eventually ended. I have friends who believe they were not born gay and yet they struggle with sexual urges/fantasies that involve people of their own gender. I have had lengthy conversations with these friends and I care for them deeply. They tell me they did not "choose" their urges and that they would much prefer these urges go away. I believe them. While I cannot personally relate to their struggle, my heart is with them in the midst of it and I value them as friends.

Wes

[Born Free]

[Note: I started this thread because there was some apparent concern that this forum has a policy against discussing homosexuality. Please let me assure you that that is absolutely not the case. Only when it's being discussed in ways the are felt to be disrespectful or belittling of the gay community do we feel that it violates the posting policy of this forum.]

Should a person be forced to change their sexual orientation? I say no. I think the most noble pursuit in life is to enjoy life, enjoy each moment, as long as doing so doesn't conflict with another's right to enjoy life.
We have evolved, or some might say have been created, to do what we are now doing -- experiencing life! From an evolutionary perspective an inconceivable amount of time and energy have been expended over the life of the universe to bring us to the point of being conscious of self and of our surrounding. We seem to be the culmination (in some respects) of creation in that we appear to be the most capable creatures on this planet to get maximum enjoyment out of life. I think it would be an incredible sin to waste all that has gone into bringing us to this point by suppressing what gives us joy and pleasure. Of course it would also be an incredible sin to do things that deny others of that right (and responsibility to self and creation). If I were forced to change my 'god-given' sexual preference for women that would severely impact my enjoyment of life. So no, I don’t think a person should be forced to change their sexual preference, nor do I think they truly can change it. I think they can only be trained to fool themselves. Of course there are some who’s sexual preference is both – they might bounce back an forth across the gender line. Forcing them to decide one or the other would also be a sin (IMHO).

Any other thoughts?

Jeff

Jeff,

Two issues involved in this for me:

1. Do I find coercion acceptable in this area? and

2. What would the coercive intervention achieve?

1. I can see no rationale or justification for the use of force in this area. There are no victims, unless one buys the belief that God or humanity is somehow a victim here. I don't buy either.

My first rebuttal would be if "God" made gays, he/she either 1 was ok with homosexuality, or 2 made a mistake - in which case they are not "God" in the traditional way the word is used.

2. I see nothing achieved. "Scientific" efforts to cure homosexuality in the past (in which Mormonism I understand were participants), were completley unsuccessful, and the US APS now refuse to categorize homosexuality as an aberation or "disease" to be cured.

All that has resulted in the past from the many misguided efforts that I am aware of a pain, heartbreak, and in many cases delay of the inevitable, where usually in midlife, human integrity demands we be who and what we really are.

Daryl

[miss taken]

Maybe a little off the point, but there was a case in the US of two boy twins, and one was, under the direction of some psychologist, dressed and encouraged to be a girl (I am not sure about the physiology of the child).
This 'experiment' was hailed as a complete success, and was used as an argument for the idea that gender was entirely cultural in origin.
What wasn't told was that 'girl' could not cope with being a 'girl' and went back to his own sexual gender (boy). Last I heard he had killed himself under the trauma of it all.

So, I firmly believe that our gender is biologically formed, and that sometimes nature screws up.

Should someone be forced to do anything? No.

[silverfox]

Maybe a little off the point, but there was a case in the US of two boy twins, and one was, under the direction of some psychologist, dressed and encouraged to be a girl (I am not sure about the physiology of the child).
This 'experiment' was hailed as a complete success, and was used as an argument for the idea that gender was entirely cultural in origin.
What wasn't told was that 'girl' could not cope with being a 'girl' and went back to his own sexual gender (boy). Last I heard he had killed himself under the trauma of it all.

So, I firmly believe that our gender is biologically formed, and that sometimes nature screws up.

Should someone be forced to do anything? No.

Isn't it sick to think how people take it upon themselves and mess with these kids? The word "Hitler" comes to mind. Sick SOBs....experimenting with kids. Even sicker parents for allowing it.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Should a person be forced to change their sexual orientation?
Jeff

Maybe "forced" is too strong. I agree, no one should be forced to do anything. How about should a person even be expected or required to change their sexual preference?

Jeff

[silverfox]

Maybe "forced" is too strong. I agree, no one should be forced to do anything. How about should a person even be expected or required to change their sexual preference?

Jeff

I think it's just STUPID to try to push sexual preference on anyone.

I've known many homosexuals throughout my life. Not one EVER has tried to persuade me to change my sexual preference.

IMO, if you take everything out of the equation it boils down to mutual respect.

Mutual respect has never hurt anyone.

[bigeddy]

I am still looking for the answer to one of my biggest questions. I want to see a reasonable, cogent answer to the question regarding protecting marriage. Why and how does forbidding homosexual marriage "protect the sacred institution of marriage"? These words are thrown around all the time and, to me, they have no meaning whatsoever.

How about some of you lurkers out there enlightening me on this one? I used to ask it quite sarcastically, now, I really want to know. What logical basis sits under this statement. Surely there must be something.

I sit bewildered and bebaffled.

As to the question of this thread. I will take a good hard stand.

ABSOLUTELY NOT IN ANY WAY SHOULD A PERSON BE COERCED, CAJOLED, INFLUENCED, PERSUADED OR INVITED TO CHANGE SEXUAL ORIENTATION FROM HOMOSEXUAL TO HETEROSEXUAL UNLESS YOU DO THE SAME THE OTHER WAY AND FOR THE SAME REASONS. IT MUST GO BOTH WAYS.

I, for one, am glad the APA has pulled its collective head out and has begun to stick up for mental health on this issue. In fact, not only is homosexuality not considered a disease, the notion of trying to persuade a person, or assist them in changing has begun to be professionaly challenged. Finally, a person who offers reorientation therapy is seen with as jaundiced an eye as a person who would offer reorientation to help a person switch from heter to homosexuality. Imagine how the professional, and the rest, world would react to a therapist who advertised and offered reorientation therapy to assist a person to change TO homosexuality. (And offered to assist any person to become turned on to animals and small rodents.) We would hold that such a therapist was working AGAINST mental health, would we not? So, it is high time we started to hold that anyone offering reorientation therapy should be seen in the same light as a person offering therapy to enable one to participate, with gusto, in necrophilia!!!

In fact, a few years ago, BYU Psych department lost its APA accreditation because they advocated helping people switch from homo to heterosexuality. I think the APA did it (withdrew accreditation) for the reasons stated above; the psych department was endorsing therapy that runs counter to mental health. Anyway, there was a legal battle and the dept. got their accreditation back. They had to do so by the professors speaking out of both sides of their face. They endorsed the APA position, but held onto thier temple reccies. I watched a man I respected (he was my supervisor for several years) weasle on this and a couple other issues. The look on his face told me that he knew he was weasleing but he did it to hold onto his lifestyle on both ends of the rope. I lost all respect for him that day; so much for intellectual honesty.

Ed

[mutleydog]

I have friends who believe they were not born gay and yet they struggle with sexual urges/fantasies that involve people of their own gender. I have had lengthy conversations with these friends and I care for them deeply. They tell me they did not "choose" their urges and that they would much prefer these urges go away. I believe them. While I cannot personally relate to their struggle, my heart is with them in the midst of it and I value them as friends.Wes

I used to be one of those people. Not belieiving that being was inherent, but that it was something that could be overcome, 'my cross to bare' and it genuinely not a good place to be. Of course you are desperate for the 'urges' to subside because you have been indoctrinated that being gay is wrong or acting upon your feelings is wrong. It was only when people started accepting the 'real me' I began to except myself and excepting that it wasn't me who was 'wrong', but the attitude towards being gay was wrong. If someone tells you that what you feel is not right, you are going to totally resent those feelings and want them to go a way. It took a long while but when I started to realise that these feelings were not wrong, my resentment subsided and I gradually learnt to embrace who I am and what I feel.

[darin]

I don't have time to post much today, but in response to Ryan/bczutah's former claims in a previous thread something along the lines that "thousands have changed their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual," I would HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend the following documentary on the subject, which deals with religious organizations/ministries which advocate and promise 'change' for gays in the name of religion:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001WTVRU/qid%3D1111436166/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-4972238-9484140

Here's a description of the film, itself:

"One Nation Under God" is an insightful peek into the world of "ex-gays." Gary and Michael were two (of five) founding members of Exodus International, one of the first Christian ministries devoted to "curing" gays. Religious men, they felt that a gay lifestyle was incompatible with the teachings of the Bible, so they promoted heterosexuality. But despite leading heterosexual lives, the two men realized they were in love with each other. Their commentary anchors this documentary directed by Teodoro Maniaci and Francine Rzeznik. Interviews with the current head of Exodus, ex-gays, teachers in the ministry, psychologists, and ex-ex-gays create a surprisingly well-balanced film. While a glimpse inside the workings of the ministry would have been interesting (how, exactly, do you make a person "ex-gay"?), the archival footage from 1950s and '60s psychologists and discussions create an occasionally funny, definitely thought-provoking film that will both horrify (the implications of what the Religious Right is doing here are ghastly) and entertain. --Jenny Brown

One Nation Under God is a bizarre and fascinating look into "curing" homosexuality - making gays straight. Mixing archival footage and interviews with people from both sides of the issue, it shows the absurd lengths that straight religious and medical people have gone in their efforts to change gays and lesbians, which include beauty makeovers for butch lesbians, football for gay males, and truly frightening forms of aversion therapy. Funny, sad, outrageous, and though-provoking, this acclaimed documentary exposes the twisted ideology underlying many extreme religious right groups.

Whether one is gay or not, it is a FASCINATING and VERY enlightening film--I didn't originally buy it--I actually came across it at my local library here in CT--but it is well worth buying, if such is the only way you will have access to it--especially for those who may be struggling with accepting their sexuality, or have a family member who is.

[silverfox]

I don't have time to post much today, but in response to Ryan/bczutah's former claims in a previous thread something along the lines that "thousands have changed their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual," I would HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend the following documentary on the subject, which deals with religious organizations/ministries which advocate and promise 'change' for gays in the name of religion:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001WTVRU/qid%3D1111436166/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-4972238-9484140

Here's a description of the film, itself:



Whether one is gay or not, it is a FASCINATING and VERY enlightening film--I didn't originally buy it--I actually came across it at my local library here in CT--but it is well worth buying, if such is the only way you will have access to it--especially for those who may be struggling with accepting their sexuality, or have a family member who is.

Sounds VERY interesting. Gonna check it out. Thanks for the link!

[elder_nomo]

I used to be one of those people. Not belieiving that being was inherent, but that it was something that could be overcome, 'my cross to bare' and it genuinely not a good place to be. Of course you are desperate for the 'urges' to subside because you have been indoctrinated that being gay is wrong or acting upon your feelings is wrong.
me too. but i was repressing to such a degree that i could not even acknowledge having those feelings until after i had left the church for a while.
i guess in a way that made it easier because i didn't have to suffer thru the mo "cures".

for anyone who is trying to reconcile acceptance of gays with christian teachings and tradition, i recommend this book.....
"Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" by John Boswell. it's quite a big read, but worth it. it includes a section about the "problem" scriptures. you may be surprised at what they really say when taken in cultural, social and linguistic context.

[darin]

For those that are interested, I have heard that the following book is fascinating (I am waiting for my own copy to arrive, so I haven't read it yet):

"Anything but Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth"

http://www.anythingbutstraight.com/

An excerpt from the website:

“Ex-Gay” History

In 1973 John Evans, who is gay, and Rev. Kent Philpott, who is heterosexual, co-founded the original “ex-gay” ministry, Love In Action on the outskirts of San Francisco. Philpott soon wrote The Third Sex?, the first ever “ex-gay” book which touted six people who supposedly converted to heterosexuality through prayer.

Although time eventually revealed no one in his book actually had changed, the people reading it had no idea the stories were fallacious. As far as they knew, there was a magical place in California that had figured out the secret for making gays into straights. Inspired by his book, a few enthusiastic individuals spontaneously began their own “ex-gay” ministries.

Evans, however, denounced the program he co-founded after his best friend Jack McIntyre committed suicide in despair over not being able to “change”. Still, Love in Action survived because many people who read The Third Sex? came to California in hopes of changing.

As a result of Philpott’s book, within three years more than a dozen “ex-gay” ministries organically sprung up across America. As these ministries serendipitously became aware of each other, two leading “ex-gay” counselors at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, California - Gary Cooper and Michael Bussee - decided to organize a conference where the “ex-gays” could meet each other and network.

In September 1976, Cooper and Bussee’s vision came to fruition as sixty-two “ex-gays” journeyed to Melodyland for the world’s first “ex-gay” conference. The outcome of the retreat was the formation of Exodus International, an umbrella organization for “ex-gay” groups worldwide.

The early Exodus meetings almost disintegrated the group because participants kept sleeping with each other. The group was rocked to its core a few years later when Bussee and Cooper acknowledged that they had not changed and were in love with each other. They soon divorced their wives, moved in together and eventually held a commitment ceremony.

In 1979, Seventh Day Adventist minister Colin Cook founded Homosexuals Anonymous (HA). But Cook’s “ex-gay” empire crumbled a few years later after he was scandalized for having phone sex and giving nude massages to those he was supposedly helping become heterosexual.

As acceptance for homosexuality grew in the late 1970’s, the “ex-gay” ministries had trouble attracting new recruits and growth of these programs stagnated. Then came AIDS. Unscrupulous ministry leaders were able to use the threat of AIDS to scare people into entering “ex-gay” ministries.

However, even as the epidemic spurred new growth, the “ex-gay” ministries remained relatively obscure in mainstream society. This dramatically changed in 1998 when the politically motivated Religious Right jumped on the “ex-gay” bandwagon launching a multi-million dollar newspaper and television ad campaign. They featured groups like Exodus because the traditional fire and brimstone rhetoric of the far right political groups made them seem mean-spirited and intolerant. By embracing the “ex-gays”, hateful men like Revs. D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson could claim they loved homosexuals and were just trying to help them.

But the ad campaign soon backfired after University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard was murdered because he was gay. The groups who sponsored the anti-gay ads were held largely responsible for creating a climate where hate crimes, such as the Shepard incident, could flourish. Although these groups denied a connection, because of the negative fallout they postponed their “ex-gay” television ads for several months and the campaign lost steam.

Additionally, several of the “ex-gays” they paraded as proof of “change” were uncovered as frauds. The biggest example was “ex-gay” poster boy John Paulk who the ad campaign sponsors put on the cover of Newsweek with his “ex-lesbian” wife Anne under the large headline, “Gay for Life?” But in September 2000 Paulk was photographed cruising in a Washington, DC gay bar and was suspended as Chairman of Exodus and put on a temporary “hiatus” by Focus on the Family, where he ran their “Love Won Out” program.

The “ex-gay” ministries are still growing today despite their history of scandals and failures. The sad truth is, as long as people are made to hate themselves for being gay, these groups will exist. The best way to counter their negative influence is by highlighting the truth and revealing the failed history that “ex-gay” groups represent. Showing an honest portrayal of gay life also greatly diminishes the effectiveness of these groups. When people learn that God loves them for who they are and that they can be gay and happy, the appeal of these dangerous groups invariably wanes.

[silverfox]

I like all the resources our members are providing.

darin - please give us a review once you receive the book!

I always have assumed that being "ex-gay" only means one has learned to live their life like everyone wants them to. I often wonder how much they suffer 'quietly'. Or if they were ever truly gay to begin with.

[peter_mary]

For those that are interested, I have heard that the following book is fascinating (I am waiting for my own copy to arrive, so I haven't read it yet):

"Anything but Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth"



Darin,

I VERY much appreciated reading that excerpt. What struck me are the parallels in the Church to the Lamanites becoming "White and Delightsome." Check out the parallels between the fallacy of the "ex-gay ministries" and Spencer Kimball's "ex-Lamanite ministries:"

"The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as white as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl- sixteen- sitting between the darker father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents- on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated." (Spencer W. Kimball, "The Day of the Lamanites," The Improvemant, Era, Dec. 1960, p. 923)

In my mind, the parallels are both stark and telling. In both instances, we have very dogmatically minded people who refuse to believe that people could have been created in a fashion other than white, straight and Christian, and are convinced that through the administration of their peculiar set of doctrines, that the "natural" man can be overcome.

It wasn't true of the Native Americans, and it isn't true for the homosexual.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

Peter_Mary

[silverfox]

Darin,

I VERY much appreciated reading that excerpt. What struck me are the parallels in the Church to the Lamanites becoming "White and Delightsome." Check out the parallels between the fallacy of the "ex-gay ministries" and Spencer Kimball's "ex-Lamanite ministries:"



In my mind, the parallels are both stark and telling. In both instances, we have very dogmatically minded people who refuse to believe that people could have been created in a fashion other than white, straight and Christian, and are convinced that through the administration of their peculiar set of doctrines, that the "natural" man can be overcome.

It wasn't true of the Native Americans, and it isn't true for the homosexual.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

Peter_Mary

Peter_Mary - what an amazing observation. Thanks for sharing that. It's gonna come in handy!

[formermormon]

Wow! That "lamanite" program quote blew me away. I hadn't realized how explicit they had been! Thanks, Peter_Mary! The analogy is pretty near perfect - and the evidence of change equally convincing. :rolleyes:

I wanted to comment on the title of this thread. It doesn't even make sense! "Should a person be forced to change their sexual orientation?" makes exactly as much sense as "should a person be forced to change their race". You could pretend, or work hard at copying the "white/straight" behaviors, but you could never truly CHANGE it. I mean, you could ask, "should a person be forced to PRETEND to change their sexual orientation?" or "should a person be forced to go into denial", or "should a person be forced to be celebate and alone?", but as written, it's nonsense.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Wow! That "lamanite" program quote blew me away. I hadn't realized how explicit they had been! Thanks, Peter_Mary! The analogy is pretty near perfect - and the evidence of change equally convincing. :rolleyes:

I wanted to comment on the title of this thread. It doesn't even make sense! "Should a person be forced to change their sexual orientation?" makes exactly as much sense as "should a person be forced to change their race". You could pretend, or work hard at copying the "white/straight" behaviors, but you could never truly CHANGE it. I mean, you could ask, "should a person be forced to PRETEND to change their sexual orientation?" or "should a person be forced to go into denial", or "should a person be forced to be celebate and alone?", but as written, it's nonsense.

The Mormon Church as well as other religions seem to think that a person's sexual preference can be changed through what I'll call brute force, i.e. change or go to hell. It was in that context that I phrased the question.

In another post in the thread I said,

"Maybe 'forced' is too strong. I agree, no one should be forced to do anything. How about, should a person even be expected or required to change their sexual preference?"

Jeff

[formermormon]

I see what you're getting at, but I think you missed my point. It's like: "Should a person 'be expected or required' to be exactly 6 feet tall?" (because FORCED would be too strong) I don't know - maybe it's a great height - you would fit nicely in airplane seats and such, but it's simply not possible. The premise is silly. (and clearly only 6 foot tall people would ask such a thing)

People can't change their sexual orientation - they can only [via intense shaming and conviction that "God wills it"], or maybe "conditioning" be forced to pretend, or be in extremely unhealthy denial, or to sublimate or live as if they were straight. That does not constitute "change". The so-called "therapies" do not work. (and are horribly offensive). The academic evidence is mounting - nobody seriously believes (outside of religious institutions, such as mormonism) that sexual orientation is subject to change.

[Jeff_Ricks]

I see what you're getting at, but I think you missed my point. It's like: "Should a person 'be expected or required' to be exactly 6 feet tall?" (because FORCED would be too strong) I don't know - maybe it's a great height - you would fit nicely in airplane seats and such, but it's simply not possible. The premise is silly. (and clearly only 6 foot tall people would ask such a thing)

People can't change their sexual orientation - they can only [via intense shaming and conviction that "God wills it"], or maybe "conditioning" be forced to pretend, or be in extremely unhealthy denial, or to sublimate or live as if they were straight. That does not constitute "change". The so-called "therapies" do not work. (and are horribly offensive). The academic evidence is mounting - nobody seriously believes (outside of religious institutions, such as mormonism) that sexual orientation is subject to change.

Maybe I haven't been very clear. I agree with you 100%. I'm not advocating that sexual preference be changed. I don't think anyone has the right to try to force, shame, or encourage anyone to change their sexual preference. We're on the same side of this issue my friend! :D

Jeff

[formermormon]

Jeff,

Oh, I know, (or at least I figured) that you were being friendly about it. :)

I just think that the sematics make false assumptions. I think it would be better phrased "Should a person be forced to pretend to change their sexual orientation", or "is it at all morally acceptable for organizations to assert that sexual orientation can or should be changed?" or something. The current phrasing assumes that change is possible, and that the only disagreement might be over whether or not it is OK to FORCE it. To me, that's off base.

[free thinker]

Sounds funny doesn't it? If I was going to try to be a homosexual it would be an emotional devastation for me. I have to beleive that a gay man or woman feels the same way!!

When I was active mormon I think I was afraid of gay folk. I'm not now! How strange!!

Free Thinker

[Born Free]

Sounds funny doesn't it? If I was going to try to be a homosexual it would be an emotional devastation for me. I have to beleive that a gay man or woman feels the same way!!

When I was active mormon I think I was afraid of gay folk. I'm not now! How strange!!

Free Thinker

I am gobsmacked by the trivialization of homosexuality (or ignorance of the person making the statement) who speaks of homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice".

IMHO, Mormonism is actually a lifestyle choice, but Mos would go bananas if you suggested same, yet they have no problem trivialising homosexuality by making such an inane remark.

Daryl