Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The majority of people contributing to the blog you link do not consider homosexuality to be 'perfectly normal.'
    Irrelevant.

    Try reading the responses and you'll see why they agree that those who would rather not have homosexual tendencies should be offered treatment on the NHS as much as anyone who has 'conditions' they want to be cured of.
    Homosexuality is not a condition, any more than Heterosexuality is. If people aren't happy with being gay, they are more than happy to waste their money on treatments that wont/can't work, that's they're prerogative. It's like plastic surgery, though with a much lower success rate, if you're unhappy with your body you can fund plastic surgery but you can't make the taxpayer pay for it.

    Whether reparative treatment is possible is not the debate...the funding of is.
    Well that's a stupid statement, the fact that changing somebody's sexuality doesn't work is going to affect whether people are willing to fund it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ningasheep12345)
    It's like plastic surgery, though with a much lower success rate, if you're unhappy with your body you can fund plastic surgery but you can't make the taxpayer pay for it.
    In many situations, you can have the taxpayer pay for largely cosmetic treatments through the NHS. Not to mention other things, like gender reassignment.

    the fact that changing somebody's sexuality doesn't work
    That's not a 'fact' at all, it's just ********. Indeed, as it seems sexuality is largely an environmental thing, people cannot only change the sexuality of others, but are instrumental in its creation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    In many situations, you can have the taxpayer pay for largely cosmetic treatments through the NHS. Not to mention other things, like gender reassignment.
    Which is wrong. NO cosmetic surgery should be available through the NHS, unless it is entirely reconstructive or health relatived (i.e. breast reduction - solve back problems)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That's not a 'fact' at all, it's just ********. Indeed, as it seems sexuality is largely an environmental thing, people cannot only change the sexuality of others, but are instrumental in its creation.
    Where's the conclusive research which shows that sexuality is "largely an environmental thing"? Even if it is, sexuality would be something which is decided by the time you hit puberty, it's a nonsense trying to change it later on in life.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Stories like this are as much an argument about whether the NHS should exist at all though. If everybody agrees on what is an illness or an injury, then it is fairly easy to convince them that socialised healthcare is a good thing for them. But I for one, and many others I am sure do not consider homosexuality to be a "condition" worthy of my taxes.

    I have no problem with private individuals curing homosexuality for a fee (if they can) but it is not the job of the NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This must be a confusing one for Daily Mail readers, as they probably agree with the curing of homosexuals but don’t want to pay for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usernamegoeshere)
    the comment by "barryobarma" half way down that page nearly made me cry :'(
    It was just plain pig-ignorance. The guy clearly doesn't know any better, thats the worrying thing.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Which is wrong. NO cosmetic surgery should be available through the NHS, unless it is entirely reconstructive or health relatived (i.e. breast reduction - solve back problems)
    Are mental health issues not health 'relatived'?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Are mental health issues not health 'relatived'?
    I was merely referring to certain situations where people have had cosmetic surgery on the NHS which is not health related.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I was merely referring to certain situations where people have had cosmetic surgery on the NHS which is not health related.
    I think you'll find that most of the surgery you're referring to is for mental health reasons i.e. alleviating the depression and anxiety that an individual may have because of their physical attributes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    I think you'll find that most of the surgery you're referring to is for mental health reasons i.e. alleviating the depression and anxiety that an individual may have because of their physical attributes.
    For example, I am overweight because I cannot stop stuffing my face with cake.
    I demand surgery?

    If so, they should piss off and pay for it themselves.


    If you have a genuine mental condition, such as that gender confusion thing (cannot remember the name) then fine. However, if you are merely depressed because you are too fat or your boobs are too small then unlucky - You want that kind of surgery pay for it yourself.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    For example, I am overweight because I cannot stop stuffing my face with cake.
    I demand surgery?

    If so, they should piss off and pay for it themselves.


    If you have a genuine mental condition, such as that gender confusion thing (cannot remember the name) then fine. However, if you are merely depressed because you are too fat or your boobs are too small then unlucky - You want that kind of surgery pay for it yourself.
    Obesity is a health concern in and of itself, mental health issues aside.

    As for depression - if it is serious enough to make you a suicide risk and resistent to conventional treatment, then treating the root cause, whether that is cosmetic or no, is a better result than leaving the individual uncontributive to society or even dead.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    That blog had some entertaining responses, amid the claims that I quote "homosexuality and feminism are the tools of communist engineers", there was an interesting suggestion that if homosexuality were genetic it would seem to go against our understanding of evolution, I would have to disagree with this point; it needn't do so considering it's a minority trait, it could fulfill the genetic function of slowing population growth. Personally I don't think its wholly genetic.
    As for the topic, the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for this, if people want to change their sexuality they can fork out their own cash. The government are behaving rather hypocritically in allowing for this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    can they make me gay then? Lol "gay for a week" treatments?

    I assume this is some major brain surgery?

    I mean it can't just be psychiatrists, since we all know that's not going to change someone's sexuality, make em feel crap about it and kill themselves, yeah sure, but actually change it...nope.
    Nah, this is just evangelical christian rubbish. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...n-1884947.html

    There's no way neurosurgery is anywhere near the point of being able to alter something like sexual orientation. In addition, so-called "psychosurgery" was rightly discredited after the mass use of frontal lobotomies in the 1940s-60s in the USA.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by C2H5OH)
    Nah, this is just evangelical christian rubbish. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...n-1884947.html

    There's no way neurosurgery is anywhere near the point of being able to alter something like sexual orientation. In addition, so-called "psychosurgery" was rightly discredited after the mass use of frontal lobotomies in the 1940s-60s in the USA.
    Not entirely correct.

    Have a look at this website which is scientifically based - and the claims of success in affecting a change in homosexual orientation.

    I did link it on my post #17 on the previous page...you might not have seen it.

    http://www.narth.com/docs/published.html
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by yawn)
    Not entirely correct.

    Have a look at this website which is scientifically based - and the claims of success in affecting a change in homosexual orientation.

    I did link it on my post #17 on the previous page...you might not have seen it.

    http://www.narth.com/docs/published.html
    Thats a disgusting organisation. It scares me that you want to work with children.


    Anyway, im glad you have stopped copying from 'an intelligent persons guide to catholicism' for a while.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Not entirely correct.

    Have a look at this website which is scientifically based - and the claims of success in affecting a change in homosexual orientation.

    I did link it on my post #17 on the previous page...you might not have seen it.

    http://www.narth.com/docs/published.html
    This ISN'T scientifically based.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm

    Every other professional mental health society condemns this crap as being ineffective and potentially dangerous.

    It's also pretty horrendous when you come to think about it, as most of the people that have to go through "reparative therapy" are LGBT children forced to by their parents, often at penalty of disownment.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by C2H5OH)
    This ISN'T scientifically based.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm

    Every other professional mental health society condemns this crap as being ineffective and potentially dangerous.

    It's also pretty horrendous when you come to think about it, as most of the people that have to go through "reparative therapy" are LGBT children forced to by their parents, often at penalty of disownment.
    The facts speak for themselves. NARTH is independent of the website you link...and their rates of 'success' are validated in scientic journals.

    For those homosexuals who would want to receive reparative therapy, I do think that any effective treatments should be available on the NHS, as much as I agree with those smokers who don't want to smoke having free smoking cessation treatment or those suffering from depression for whatever reason also having free treatment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The facts speak for themselves. NARTH is independent of the website you link...and their rates of 'success' are validated in scientic journals.

    For those homosexuals who would want to receive reparative therapy, I do think that any effective treatments should be available on the NHS, as much as I agree with those smokers who don't want to smoke having free smoking cessation treatment or those suffering from depression for whatever reason also having free treatment.
    "Scientific journals". You mean a load of crap in Psychological Reports, a pathetic rag of a journal with a near-zero rejection rate (indicating that it's basically NOT peer reviewed), a 2 year citation rate of 0.25 despite churning out some ~500 papers a year according to the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and the Journal Citation Reports (indicating that the vast majority of published papers don't even get cited by any other published work), and which is near-unique among journals in that it charges $27.50 per page to publish something?

    It's a vanity press, pure and simple. This doesn't count as validation in "scientific journals". You're being completely disingenuous.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The facts speak for themselves. NARTH is independent of the website you link...and their rates of 'success' are validated in scientic journals.

    For those homosexuals who would want to receive reparative therapy, I do think that any effective treatments should be available on the NHS, as much as I agree with those smokers who don't want to smoke having free smoking cessation treatment or those suffering from depression for whatever reason also having free treatment.
    As C2H5OH has pointed out Psychological Reports in which Dr Nicolosi's work is published has such a desperately low impact factor (around 0.2) that in all honesty if it was written in gravity on the University toilet wall it would be read by more academics. In addition to that highly regarded journals with high impact factors have published large pieces of work discrediting the work of "ex-gay" therpaists.

    On the substantive claim - it borders on abuse to take vulnerable young people who are distressed that they may be gay and offering them "cure". Their published theories as to the potential causes of homosexuality are thrown at the patient by the therapist and, as with all things, if you throw enough mud a tiny bit will stick. This is of course true when the patient desperately does not want to be gay and is looking for an excuse/cause for their sexuality. The desperate desire not to be gay is what makes some people think "ex-gay" therapy works as the patient wants to change to so badly they are willing to accept anything the therapist says.

    Ex-gay therapy is opposed by all recognized and reputable psychological and psychiatric organizations including the American Psychiatric Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

    Far from being a treatment this does more harm than good breaking one of the fundamental ethical principles of medical treatment.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.