RE: Another example of the "gay to straight" myth
June 21, 2014 at 9:25 pm
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2014 at 9:27 pm by zanOTK.)
There's still a lot of argument over what exactly causes homosexuality and bisexuality. Whether or not it can be treated, and how it should be treated (if the individual actually feels they need treatment. It should be totally up to them), depends upon what exactly causes it.
I'm bisexual. I didn't want to be, and I sure as hell didn't choose to be. Being raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, I believed homosexuality and bisexuality were wrong and sins against God while I was growing up. So, I denied my emotions and what I honestly found to be appealing. I was 18 when I finally accepted the fact that I find men attractive. If I had a choice, I probably would find treatment if I felt it was safe and I could actually afford it. I would because bisexual men are often considered to be quite disgusting, even by some homosexuals. That's the weird thing. Even as our society is becoming more accepting of homosexuality (and it is, very slowly), it still has trouble accepting anything other than monosexuality (only being sexually attracted to men or women, not both). So yeah, I would try to be treated. But it wouldn't work. It wouldn't work because your sexuality isn't a damn disease, nor is it a lifestyle choice. It might be a result of having no strong father figure. It might be genetic. It might be something we haven't even thought of yet. But it's who I am, and it's who many, many other people are. Whether Rick Perry, or anybody else, likes it or not.
I feel sorry for Mr. Paulk's wife, and any children he may have had (I'm not familiar with him, so I don't know if he had much of a family or not). But he shouldn't have been made to believe he had to go through that treatment in the first place. It used to be believed that you needed to receive treatment for non-heterosexual attractions, but science has since totally disproven that. So people like Rick Perry need to move into the 21st century and shut the hell up.
Many believe that the cure for homosexuality IS asexuality. Which is, in my opinion, an insult to homosexuals and asexuals at once.
I'm bisexual. I didn't want to be, and I sure as hell didn't choose to be. Being raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, I believed homosexuality and bisexuality were wrong and sins against God while I was growing up. So, I denied my emotions and what I honestly found to be appealing. I was 18 when I finally accepted the fact that I find men attractive. If I had a choice, I probably would find treatment if I felt it was safe and I could actually afford it. I would because bisexual men are often considered to be quite disgusting, even by some homosexuals. That's the weird thing. Even as our society is becoming more accepting of homosexuality (and it is, very slowly), it still has trouble accepting anything other than monosexuality (only being sexually attracted to men or women, not both). So yeah, I would try to be treated. But it wouldn't work. It wouldn't work because your sexuality isn't a damn disease, nor is it a lifestyle choice. It might be a result of having no strong father figure. It might be genetic. It might be something we haven't even thought of yet. But it's who I am, and it's who many, many other people are. Whether Rick Perry, or anybody else, likes it or not.
I feel sorry for Mr. Paulk's wife, and any children he may have had (I'm not familiar with him, so I don't know if he had much of a family or not). But he shouldn't have been made to believe he had to go through that treatment in the first place. It used to be believed that you needed to receive treatment for non-heterosexual attractions, but science has since totally disproven that. So people like Rick Perry need to move into the 21st century and shut the hell up.
(June 21, 2014 at 9:01 pm)Losty Wrote:(June 21, 2014 at 8:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: I agree with your point but at best all it can be used for is to claim there is simply no need to treat homosexuality where as there is a need to treat pedophilia. My question is this: If pedophilia can be treated why can't homosexuality? What is magical about homosexuality that makes it immune to treatment?
Treatments are not always formulated on needs but rather wants. Nobody needs to be treated for Alopecia....and because that is true should we ban the treatment of Alopecia? Of course not.
Pedophilia is not a sexuality it is a disease. Even pedophiles are hetero, homo, or bi sexual. You cannot treat someone's sexuality. There's no cure for sexuality. If you were to treat a homosexual what would a cure be? Asexuality?
Many believe that the cure for homosexuality IS asexuality. Which is, in my opinion, an insult to homosexuals and asexuals at once.
هاورکرافت من پر مارماهى است
