h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Creachy, I believe sexuality goes deeper than whims or even effort of will.

I could never be a Villa fan no matter how I tried. I could grow to like something different like say country and western music but I dont think I could ever stop liking reggae.

I think there is a lot of influence that environmental messages have upon people but there are so many messages intereacting with individuals complex personalities that I dont think anyone could be accurate enought to say this or that makes people gay/straight/bi.

It is an interesting subject in a way but Id rahter time and money be spent on what makes people want to harm or sexually abuse children. Dont hear much about churches funding or promoting that, wonder why

<>

Perhaps, Blicky, because we have laws against abusing children (which are sometimes hit and miss). Someone previously tried to tie in homosexuality with paedophilia, but of course they cannot be compared as homosexual behaviour between consenting adults is a personal choice while paedphilia is the abuse of a child that is not able to consent and so we must protect the child.

az

AAAAAArgh! Why would it have to be cured at all, other than to fit in with Christian beliefs which belong in the dark ages? What next, being left-handed? Now that IS sinister. Can't we just accept that people come in all shapes, sizes and sexualities? It is no-one's business who they sleep with or love but their own. It's all part of life's rich tapestry. Why can't people accept that other people are different and just leave it at that.



PS just had to get that off my chest, been lurking for a while.....

Pedro,

Agree totally. Which was the point of starting this thread. In an attempt to show that a 'cure' for homosexuality is the worst sort of social/religious prejudice against something that is totally natural.

az

*Now that IS sinister.*

Lovely.

I think we can all agree the original thrust of the thread has been decided on? There's nothing wrong to *cure*?

Blicky, point well taken but in fact I know of several organisations, both secular and not who are exclusively involved in dealing with paedophilia. And azahar, the supposed link between homosexuality and paedophilia is usually the resort of the religious right who want to paint with a wide brush without looking at facts, wouldn't you agree?

hi zoomer,

<>

The original thrust of this thread, as you put it, says it all in the title - "A 'Cure' for Homosexuality???" How is that sinister?

<>

Not specifically because I don't think it is only the religious right who do this. Unfortunately there are others who cannot see the difference.

I notice you are quoting Oscar Wilde. He was a very good example of a homosexual who pretended to be heterosexual because of the social pressures of his time, enough to marry and father children. Apparently he did love his wife and children, but his natural sexual orientation was not something he could ultimately deny. And he died because of it, very sadly and unfairly.

az

I was hoping someone would come up with something about the media only really taking interest when churches come out with a scheme that wants to reinstate middle ages morality. Which is sad but true. I know of a lot work that churches do which is much more broadly social with only a small amount of "Jesus wants you for a sun beamness" or even "fire and brimstone cahnge your ways, else burn in hell" mixed in.

That said I have noticed a great amount of tight lipped wishing changing of the subject if we ever discuss child protection at a meeting with a vicar present. Its just a subject a lot of them wont touch with a barge pole.

one ove

Azahar, the word 'sinister' is latin for left-handed. Just my wee joke.

Oi!
I was agreeing with all of you! With the only exception being a comment that some religious organisations put some effort into fighting paedophilia.

*retreats to corner*

Yes, I enjoyed that sinister pun, too.

Blicky: I never claimed it was a *good* analogy. But the questions that az drew from it (why would I want to change if I'm comfortable with it? and, paraphrasing, would I be comfortable with it if it was the cause of aggressive moral condemnation?) do seem relevant to being homosexual too.



As a Crystal Palace fan I once found myself watching a game against Spurs from the middle of a block of Spurs fans. It didn't make me a Spurs supporter, but it did make me *behave* like one for a couple of hours.


I mentioned them in the same sentence a few posts back, prompted by which could be applied to paedophilia, too. Of course in the latter case this is quite properly overruled by <...while paedophilia is the abuse of a child that is not able to consent and so must be protected.> This duty of protection of the weak has precedence. For some people though the answer to the question is that to do so would be fail to protect weaker members of society from the danger posed by people being different.

Noggin

Noggin, I hope I haven't misread. You aren't linking homosexuality with paedophilia, are you? Statistically the majority of sexual child abuse is heterosexual. That fact that children need to be protected is of course a given, they just don't specifically need to be protected from homosexuals. In fact the categories in order of statistical importance are first heterosexual, second family and friends, and third homosexual.

sorry zoomer,

I totally misread your 'sinister' comment and didn't see it as a pun, as Noggin suggested it was. Oops.

az

No problem Az, I'm just happy to be part of a thread that is both intelligent and polite.

btw, I should state that the reference to statistics I made were part of a study done by the RCMP which I was lucky enough to shoot a documentary for.

zoomer,

Any links to that documentary?

Meanwhile, I know you have misread Noggin but will leave him to defend his own postion.

az

The documentary was part of the RCMP *Be Careful, Be Safe* series called *Our Children- What's Out There*. It was shown on the Global Television Network in Canada (1999) and in a few independent markets in the US since. Mostly though it's a reference material for teachers, social workers, and parents and is available at cost from the RCMP media section and the producers *Friday Communication, Inc.*. Because it's sold non-profit as I said and because of the subject matter I don't think I'm breaking any rules here by saying any of this. If so, mod away!

zoomer,

Well, it has always angered me when some people get the notion that a homosexual (usually a man) suddenly presents a threat to their children in their role as a school teacher.

I also know an historian who took a job at a Catholic girls school in the US because it was very well-paid and quite a prestigious position. And she has to hide the fact that she is lesbian from her employers. She is totally qualified, in fact probably over-qualified but we all need jobs, and is great with kids. And she is a wonderful teacher. I just find it sad that she has to hide who she is as I know this causes her a lot of stress.

az

I couldn't agree more. In fact I have known some homosexual teachers who (at the risk of sounding like I'm categorizing all) were particularly caring and attentive (strictly non-sexual) as opposed to some heterosexual ones. The only exception was a teacher who chose to teach the 17 to 19 year olds because he knew he might be attracted to some. To his credit he only made friendships which in a few cases led to more after they left. The only case of teacher/student abuse I have ever been remotely aware of in a personal sense was entirely heterosexual.

Perhaps a smiley was not entirely relevant to that post. Rest assured the teacher in question was suspended and charged.

zoomer,

Of course the problem with generalizing is that of course there will be some homosexual teachers who abuse their students, so one cannot say the fear is totally unfounded. What is unfair is to say that *all* homosexual teachers only want to have sex with their students, which is just as ludicrous as saying the same about heterosexual teachers.

I've seen the same prejudice about older and 'still single' heterosexuals. That because they are unmarried they are somehow prime candidates for being child abusers? Aaaargh.

az

Not in the sense that you seem to have read it, zoomer, but in the much looser sense that both involve a form of social conflict, which a *minority* wish to resolve as if they were the same, when in fact there is a crucial difference when the criterion of protection for those too young to give informed consent is given its proper weight.

Noggin