The leap from your assertion to Lea's* is not all that far.




*And other's.

You don't believe in treatment but some people seek it out... homophobia doesn't come into it.

km

Walk . . . away . . . from . . . the . . . keyboard . . .

I believe in treatment big time. But for real illnesses and health conditions. Sexual preference is neither. But apparently you think it is. Let's say, hypothetically, that you're not homophobic. Then I would have to say your grossly misinformed. Pick your poison.

I suppose the more often my alleged homophobia is discussed and disseminated the more likely it is that people will believe it, so that would be a result for you would it not? To do no more than quote Stephen Fry from a television comedy sketch and be immediately attacked for homophobia shows how reactionary and intolerant some of you lot really are. As for being misinformed, I'm afraid it's you who's misinformed.

km

Statements such as your recent whopper will lead people to believe your homophobia. No discussion needed. Self-disseminating. If, in fact, we're wrong, it's because you haven't done a very good job of proving your case, or disproving ours. And yes, we lot — like any other lot — will be reactionary when confronted with incendiary statements. Furthermore, we are intolerant — of the intolerant, that is. Regarding who's misinformed, we can play ping-pong with that one all day. For myself, I prefer to be informed by the evidence in front of me. You, of course will refute that evidence, or claim there is none. And back and forth we go. Kanip! Kanop! Kanip! Kanop!

You couldn't have done a very good job reading my posts or links because you've shown no awareness of the arguments or cases I've put forward on the value of counselling. If people claim from personal experience to have overcome their own homosexuality it seems to me we have no reason to doubt them. As I pointed out old wotsisname, Giuseppe Povia, got over it and was very happy to have done so. That Texan lawyer as well - Mike wotsisname... Mike Goerke from Midland said that the counselling he received restored his heterosexual identity and saved his family life.

The Human Genome Project (HGP) as I've also made clear has dismissed arguments that homosexuality is predetermined by heritable characteristics but confirmed the role of environmental factors and choice. Persons who chose homosexuality and wish they hadn't should have access to the best possible counselling in my opinion. It's quite cruel for people grasping at straws over disproved genetic fallacies to just stick to a rigid political agenda to the extent of denying help to those who seek it. Unless you're going to assert that homosexuality is inherently preferable to heterosexuality there can be no benefit in insisting that they stick to their original decision. If they wish to change to avoid the heightened risk of depression and anxiety known to exist among non-heterosexuals they should have access to the opportunity..

I also pointed out that over here any behaviour progressing to a sex offence usually attracts attendance on a Sex Offenders Treatment Programme (SOTP) including treatment for persons committing offences motivated by homosexuality. Official Sentencing Guidance state that the purpose of such programmes is to "teach self-control mechanisms to change attitudes and behaviour and stop further offending".

The importance of effective treatment at an early stage can't be overstated because with serious recidivist sexual offending whilst "there appears to be grounds for cautious optimism regarding the efficacy of treatment programmes" overall those aimed at homosexual paedophiles" are among those who appear to do particularly badly.

Nope, I'm afraid that homophobia can't be defined by reference to those who don't subscribe to the activist gay agenda. I seem to recall you even marked President Obama down as homophobic which went down like a lead balloon even among those who are usually sympathetic to your point of view. What homophobia actually means is displaying an intense aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality - those who advocate or offer help are quite the opposite.

km

1. ~ Why is it that when one flatly disagrees with you, it automatically follows that one has not paid attention to your posts?*

2. ~ Why is it that when one chooses not to subscribe to the views of those whom you link or refer to, it automatically follows that lone is not doing a good job of reading?*

3. ~ Why is that when one rejects the validity of "successful treatment" of homosexuality on the basis that it's not a malady or "condition" in the first place, you continue to circle around to only those resources that align with your POV?*

4. ~ Why is it that this is such an all-consuming issue for you to begin with? Just pulling a stat out of thin air, I'm confident in estimating that this one topic constitutes 15% - 20% of the content of your total body of posts — rivaled only by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. You can post whatever you want to post, of course. I'm just pointing out a pattern.

Discuss.


*Easy explanation: It's been said that you like to get people to think. That by itself is a good thing. But it's only half the story. Instead of getting people to think for themselves, you would rather get people to think as you do. Unfortunately, that's a futile thing.

It doesn't - it automatically follows from your statement that I hadn't done a very good job explaining my position.


They're not cited for their views but their experiences.


It doesn't, it automatically follows from your apparent unawareness of them.


I cited a variety of resources including objective scientific research and accounts of personal experiences. The fact that some do and some don't lend support to your position shows what a one-track mind you've got expecting only endorsements of your point of view and nothing else.


It's not. Most of the posts in the long thread for example are about morality. Some persons tried to divert it onto homosexuality or tried to float their false assumptions in that regard but I wasn't among those who took the bait.


If you're going to include such posts as comedy sketches of Stephen Fry and all the noise you've generated from them which I've been obliged to silence it wouldn't be a very telling statistic. Moreover, unlike some posters who don't have the courtesy to reply to straightforward questions, I believe it's polite to do so irrespective of the topic. Neither in this thread nor the other one did I introduce the subject of homosexuality.


Last time you ran that argument Jim proved you wrong, of course. When the Palestinian problem is resolved I'll probably stop talking about it unless someone asks for a history lesson.


R i g h t.... ?


Ah, no it's the whole story.


I don't agree with that... someone who's proved wrong has no choice but to revisit their assumptions.

km

And so it goes. You will have an answer for everything, and twist and bend the course of the dialog to favor those answers, valid or not. So I will now extricate myself from this perpetual merry-go-round, because even if I were to back up each and every one of my statements with volumes of irrefutable support and/or evidence, you would still attempt to refute the irrefutable adnauseum — as you very recently demonstrated to the frustration of a new member who made an exemplary effort to take you on from the high road, and ultimately had to hit the showers before losing his patience with you. There is no such thing as "debate" with one who falls back on brick mazes. And there is no conclusion when one party cannot even agree to disagree, but demands only agreement on his terms. Once again, the sound of one hand clapping. Mazeltov. You've "won" another one...