It was in 1990, I believe, that homosexuality ceased to be defined as a disorder. That's not very long ago, and, (trying not to paraphrase Rumsfeld ), there must be many unknowns in the field of human sexuality. This leads to certain groups stating as established facts things which are not; and other groups trying portray unproven claims as factual.
The second BIB indicates what the underlying attiude of the Core Issues group is, that of homosexual practise being wrong, which contradicts the statement that heterosexuality is encouraged where this is the appropriate lifestyle choice.
I agree a bit with their opinion on Stonewall attempting to close down critical debate about being gay. "Some people are gay". There's an implication of: Some people are gay, they are irrevocably gay. "Get over it": End of story. Shut up.
Tom Robinson was glad to be gay. He ended up with a wife and child. I reckon sexuality is not necessarily fixed thoroughout life, circumstances can awaken dormant bisexuality in some people. "Some people are gay" is too simplistic and I don't think it's a bad thing to challenge the slogan, (although not by talking about "cures").
I actually don't like the slogan much to be honest, even though I understand what they are trying to say... which I don't think is anything about whether people's sexuality changes, but more about accepting that people who are gay are perfectly normal and stop making such a fuss.
I am not a huge Stonewall fan in any case (but that is a whole other conversation) and as I said in an earlier post I think they would have served the equal marriage debate better had they used slogans more directed to that issue.
I agree a bit with their opinion on Stonewall attempting to close down critical debate about being gay. "Some people are gay". There's an implication of: Some people are gay, they are irrevocably gay. "Get over it": End of story. Shut up.
Unfortunately groups like the one wishing to advertise are aligned with "pray the gay away" style therapy which preys on people who are unhappy with their sexuality (often on religious grounds). It's dangerous because it encourages people to feel very guilty about who they are. There are numerous horror stories relating to it.
Furthermore several people in this thread have said that people should seek to change their sexuality if they are attacked and ostracised by those around them. To me this is just further victimising the victim.
I DO agree that people should be able to define themselves as they will. That's fine by me and should be fine by anyone else, but it is best that it's based on people making decisions with regard to who they are in love with or attracted, rather than running away from their own attractions due to guilt or torment that they have been subjected to. That will get them nowhere.
We have free speech in ths country. I can, and do, say whatever i want.
We also have a law, which I agree with, which says that advertising should be legal, decent, honest and truthful.
If some group or person wants to put out an advert, they must be able to demonstrate that it is legal decent honest and truthful and if they can't it should be disallowed.
Recently the adfvertising standards authority has been allowing some rather questionable adverts which has resultd in some people trying it on a bit.
Also, allowing an advert that implies that British Christians are homophobic loonies like American extremeists is insulting and is also a dirty lie.
Thanks, but that was a rhetorical question; most people, even right wing nutjobs, are unlikely to openly admit to hypocrisy. Anyone with even a smidgen of common sense will be aware that a significant amount of those claiming to be against the censorship of this ad on the grounds of free speech are supporting the group because they agree with its homophobic agenda.
Also, allowing an advert that implies that British Christians are homophobic loonies like American extremeists is insulting and is also a dirty lie.
Good point. If this ad does eventually get displayed I would hope that other church organisations buy ad space from a "come as you are" type perspective. I have already seen a few examples in the states from churches that didn't want to be tied in with the anti gay rhetoric coming from certain quarters.
Thanks, but that was a rhetorical question; most people, even right wing nutjobs, are unlikely to openly admit to hypocrisy. Anyone with even a smidgen of common sense will be aware that a significant amount of those claiming to be against the censorship of this ad on the grounds of free speech are supporting the group because they agree with its homophobic agenda.
Yes, but people are entitled to their views in a free society. Is homophilia superior to homophobia? Only to those who are pro-homo. Homophobics would argue for the opposite. It is up to the individual to decide. The normal laws should apply to both camps and the arguments should be lawful as well. Incitement is different to both parties. It should be up to the public which is the superior/inferior way.
Thanks, but that was a rhetorical question; most people, even right wing nutjobs, are unlikely to openly admit to hypocrisy. Anyone with even a smidgen of common sense will be aware that a significant amount of those claiming to be against the censorship of this ad on the grounds of free speech are supporting the group because they agree with its homophobic agenda.
No they are allowed to state their point of view. That may be uncomfortable for many people but that is what free speech is on occasions. You may be right in many ways on what you say but the alternative is that we gradually lose free speech and that would be worse not just for some but for all of us.
LOL, you have changed your tune rather quickly. In your OP you make no such comment. In fact what you said was that "It worries me that these sorts of views may be taking hold in this country and could be propped up by the current government push towards 're-christianising' the UK."
I am actually permitted to have more than just a single argument for why I find this advertisement problematic. Firstly I think it's part of a concerted attempt to push christianity which may lead to a resurgence of homophobia, secondly I think it is patently false that people can choose to be gay and that they can be cured with therapy (and therefore it is misleading advertising). For both reasons I find the advertisement objectionable.
I accept that limiting free speech is dangerous but I fail to see how free speech is served by allowing the promotion of religious views which are both anti-homosexual and factually misleading.
I am very pro free speech, yet this isn't an issue of free speech, its an issue of the standards that currently govern advertisements. This advert states gays can be 'cured', yet there is 0% scientific proof this is true. Therefore it is a falsehood and violates current advertising guidelines.
I am very pro free speech, yet this isn't an issue of free speech, its an issue of the standards that currently govern advertisements. This advert states gays can be 'cured', yet there is 0% scientific proof this is true. Therefore it is a falsehood and violates current advertising guidelines.
This group thinks it can cure homosexuality through prayer and faith. The advertisement doesn't violate religious beliefs. Opponents of the advertisement should state more clearly their objections, then put them to the public.
Yes, but people are entitled to their views in a free society. Is homophilia superior to homophobia? Only to those who are pro-homo. Homophobics would argue for the opposite. It is up to the individual to decide. The normal laws should apply to both camps and the arguments should be lawful as well. Incitement is different to both parties. It should be up to the public which is the superior/inferior way.
Is tolerance superior to hatred? Yes, I think it is, if I'm being honest. You're going off topic though; my point was that I don't quite buy that the argument is over blanket free speech laws and not over a certain section of society being annoyed that they aren't allowed to spread their specific brand of hatred.
As for my views on free speech: if we were, on the whole, an intelligent species and not programmed to disregard the truth if it conflicts with our tribe's version of the truth, then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately the opposite case evidently gave us an evolutionary advantage and we are not, so I don't support unrestricted free speech.
We are at least intelligent enough to use our own judgement on what kind of speech is dangerous and so the idea that placing a ban on hate speech is equivalent to restriction on any and all types of speech is laughable and ridiculous.
Is tolerance superior to hatred? Yes, I think it is, if I'm being honest. You're going off topic though; my point was that I don't quite buy that the argument is over blanket free speech laws and not over a certain section of society being annoyed that they aren't allowed to spread their specific brand of hatred.
As for my views on free speech: if we were, on the whole, an intelligent species and not programmed to disregard the truth if it conflicts with our tribe's version of the truth, then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately the opposite case evidently gave us an evolutionary advantage and we are not, so I don't support unrestricted free speech.
We are at least intelligent enough to use our own judgement on what kind of speech is dangerous and so the idea that placing a ban on hate speech is equivalent to restriction on any and all types of speech is laughable and ridiculous.
Your view is one of many views. Other peoples views should be heard even if they are abominable to the listener. The public must be allowed to decide.
This group thinks it can cure homosexuality through prayer and faith. The advertisement doesn't violate religious beliefs. Opponents of the advertisement should state more clearly their objections, then put them to the public.
The advertisement makes a claim with no medical and scientific fact to back it, but lots to go against it Therefore it is misleading
The advertisement makes a claim with no medical and scientific fact to back it, but lots to go against it Therefore it is misleading
They haven't claimed that they can cure homosexuality through scientific means so have broken no laws. They claim to cure through spirituality. They have a case for their defence. If LT accepted payment from this group then the group have a right to know why their advertisement was pulled. Boris over-stepped his powers here and is on shaky ground. The Mayor has to prove that the group were promoting homophobia on hate grounds rather than the 'loving' ways of this Christian group. That is the battleground.
They haven't claimed that they can cure homosexuality through scientific means so have broken no laws. They claim to cure through spirituality. They have a case for their defence. If LT accepted payment from this group then the group have a right to know why their advertisement was pulled. Boris over-stepped his powers here and is on shaky ground. The Mayor has to prove that the group were promoting homophobia on hate grounds rather than the 'loving' ways of this Christian group. That is the battleground.
What proof is there that they can cure it through spirituality? I can provide numerous links proving the opposite.
Your view is one of many views. Other peoples views should be heard even if they are abominable to the listener. The public must be allowed to decide.
Why?
The views hurt people and cause problems like depression etc, honophobia affects people in negative ways all too often but that reality is ignored by too many
What proof is there that they can cure it through spirituality? I can provide numerous links proving the opposite.
If they go to court then they will have to prove that they can cure homosexuality through spirituality. That will be their undoing. You are born with your sexuality. This Christian group will end up humiliated.
They haven't claimed that they can cure homosexuality through scientific means so have broken no laws. They claim to cure through spirituality. They have a case for their defence. If LT accepted payment from this group then the group have a right to know why their advertisement was pulled. Boris over-stepped his powers here and is on shaky ground. The Mayor has to prove that the group were promoting homophobia on hate grounds rather than the 'loving' ways of this Christian group. That is the battleground.
If they were that loving then they wouldn't be pushing homophobic lies
If they go to court then they will have to prove that they can cure homosexuality through spirituality. That will be their undoing. You are born with your sexuality. This Christian group will end up humiliated.
Even if it got that far them they'd just claim the prayers weren't strong enough or something
What proof is there that they can cure it through spirituality? I can provide numerous links proving the opposite.
Actually they claim they use othodox therapies - from their website...
In response to the second part of the question around approval of professional bodies in relation to the therapeutic work undertaken by CORE - it is important to know two things: firstly, any psychotherapeutic support offered is standard to the approach and consistent with the ethical standards associated with whichever modality the therapist applies in his or her work. Secondly no special therapies are identified by and applied in the area of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) by any individual associated with CORE. However, therapeutic approaches found to be effective in supporting those in conflict around sexuality, ie affect-based and action method therapies, are used.
In the example above, Mike Davidson is a trainee psychotherapist accountable to his professional and training body, The Bristish Psychodrama Association (BPA). Within this context, Mike is open about his own journey out of homosexuality and his desire to be an accredited, safe, responsible and effective psychotherpist with an interest in (but not confined to) psychosexual development.
Well, Mike Davidson has been chucked out of the BPA now but you get the gist.
Because the options are not relevant? Don't be daft.
If I said I would choose to be straight if I had the chance because it was the better option then you'd be all over the post with your usual name-calling.
I am actually permitted to have more than just a single argument for why I find this advertisement problematic. Firstly I think it's part of a concerted attempt to push christianity which may lead to a resurgence of homophobia, secondly I think it is patently false that people can choose to be gay and that they can be cured with therapy (and therefore it is misleading advertising). For both reasons I find the advertisement objectionable.
Yet your point shifted quite markedly when it was pointed out that your opinion was based on an ongoing hatred of organised religion (one in particular), and I note you have not responded to the earlier post that really got to the core of your somewhat irregular train of thought on the matter.
I accept that limiting free speech is dangerous but I fail to see how free speech is served by allowing the promotion of religious views which are both anti-homosexual and factually misleading.
Free speech is a concept that stands alone, it is served by being there. Not by giving out messages that you happen to agree with. That is the great blind spot in your logic.
Because the options are not relevant? Don't be daft.
If I said I would choose to be straight if I had the chance because it was the better option then you'd be all over the post with your usual name-calling.
Name-calling? How is using terms correctly name-calling? That's like saying you are male is name-calling.
The question was to do with gay
Comments
I actually don't like the slogan much to be honest, even though I understand what they are trying to say... which I don't think is anything about whether people's sexuality changes, but more about accepting that people who are gay are perfectly normal and stop making such a fuss.
I am not a huge Stonewall fan in any case (but that is a whole other conversation) and as I said in an earlier post I think they would have served the equal marriage debate better had they used slogans more directed to that issue.
Unfortunately groups like the one wishing to advertise are aligned with "pray the gay away" style therapy which preys on people who are unhappy with their sexuality (often on religious grounds). It's dangerous because it encourages people to feel very guilty about who they are. There are numerous horror stories relating to it.
Furthermore several people in this thread have said that people should seek to change their sexuality if they are attacked and ostracised by those around them. To me this is just further victimising the victim.
I DO agree that people should be able to define themselves as they will. That's fine by me and should be fine by anyone else, but it is best that it's based on people making decisions with regard to who they are in love with or attracted, rather than running away from their own attractions due to guilt or torment that they have been subjected to. That will get them nowhere.
Yes. Free speech is free speech is free speech.
We also have a law, which I agree with, which says that advertising should be legal, decent, honest and truthful.
If some group or person wants to put out an advert, they must be able to demonstrate that it is legal decent honest and truthful and if they can't it should be disallowed.
Recently the adfvertising standards authority has been allowing some rather questionable adverts which has resultd in some people trying it on a bit.
Also, allowing an advert that implies that British Christians are homophobic loonies like American extremeists is insulting and is also a dirty lie.
Thanks, but that was a rhetorical question; most people, even right wing nutjobs, are unlikely to openly admit to hypocrisy. Anyone with even a smidgen of common sense will be aware that a significant amount of those claiming to be against the censorship of this ad on the grounds of free speech are supporting the group because they agree with its homophobic agenda.
Good point. If this ad does eventually get displayed I would hope that other church organisations buy ad space from a "come as you are" type perspective. I have already seen a few examples in the states from churches that didn't want to be tied in with the anti gay rhetoric coming from certain quarters.
Yes, but people are entitled to their views in a free society. Is homophilia superior to homophobia? Only to those who are pro-homo. Homophobics would argue for the opposite. It is up to the individual to decide. The normal laws should apply to both camps and the arguments should be lawful as well. Incitement is different to both parties. It should be up to the public which is the superior/inferior way.
No they are allowed to state their point of view. That may be uncomfortable for many people but that is what free speech is on occasions. You may be right in many ways on what you say but the alternative is that we gradually lose free speech and that would be worse not just for some but for all of us.
I am actually permitted to have more than just a single argument for why I find this advertisement problematic. Firstly I think it's part of a concerted attempt to push christianity which may lead to a resurgence of homophobia, secondly I think it is patently false that people can choose to be gay and that they can be cured with therapy (and therefore it is misleading advertising). For both reasons I find the advertisement objectionable.
I accept that limiting free speech is dangerous but I fail to see how free speech is served by allowing the promotion of religious views which are both anti-homosexual and factually misleading.
This group thinks it can cure homosexuality through prayer and faith. The advertisement doesn't violate religious beliefs. Opponents of the advertisement should state more clearly their objections, then put them to the public.
Is tolerance superior to hatred? Yes, I think it is, if I'm being honest. You're going off topic though; my point was that I don't quite buy that the argument is over blanket free speech laws and not over a certain section of society being annoyed that they aren't allowed to spread their specific brand of hatred.
As for my views on free speech: if we were, on the whole, an intelligent species and not programmed to disregard the truth if it conflicts with our tribe's version of the truth, then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately the opposite case evidently gave us an evolutionary advantage and we are not, so I don't support unrestricted free speech.
We are at least intelligent enough to use our own judgement on what kind of speech is dangerous and so the idea that placing a ban on hate speech is equivalent to restriction on any and all types of speech is laughable and ridiculous.
Your view is one of many views. Other peoples views should be heard even if they are abominable to the listener. The public must be allowed to decide.
The advertisement makes a claim with no medical and scientific fact to back it, but lots to go against it Therefore it is misleading
The public have decided. They elected a government and a mayor who support this advert being banned.
They haven't claimed that they can cure homosexuality through scientific means so have broken no laws. They claim to cure through spirituality. They have a case for their defence. If LT accepted payment from this group then the group have a right to know why their advertisement was pulled. Boris over-stepped his powers here and is on shaky ground. The Mayor has to prove that the group were promoting homophobia on hate grounds rather than the 'loving' ways of this Christian group. That is the battleground.
What proof is there that they can cure it through spirituality? I can provide numerous links proving the opposite.
Why?
The views hurt people and cause problems like depression etc, honophobia affects people in negative ways all too often but that reality is ignored by too many
If they go to court then they will have to prove that they can cure homosexuality through spirituality. That will be their undoing. You are born with your sexuality. This Christian group will end up humiliated.
If they were that loving then they wouldn't be pushing homophobic lies
Even if it got that far them they'd just claim the prayers weren't strong enough or something
Actually they claim they use othodox therapies - from their website...
In the example above, Mike Davidson is a trainee psychotherapist accountable to his professional and training body, The Bristish Psychodrama Association (BPA). Within this context, Mike is open about his own journey out of homosexuality and his desire to be an accredited, safe, responsible and effective psychotherpist with an interest in (but not confined to) psychosexual development.
Well, Mike Davidson has been chucked out of the BPA now but you get the gist.
Because the options are not relevant? Don't be daft.
If I said I would choose to be straight if I had the chance because it was the better option then you'd be all over the post with your usual name-calling.
Yet your point shifted quite markedly when it was pointed out that your opinion was based on an ongoing hatred of organised religion (one in particular), and I note you have not responded to the earlier post that really got to the core of your somewhat irregular train of thought on the matter.
Free speech is a concept that stands alone, it is served by being there. Not by giving out messages that you happen to agree with. That is the great blind spot in your logic.
Name-calling? How is using terms correctly name-calling? That's like saying you are male is name-calling.
The question was to do with gay