[ponsin]

I'm not a psychologist but from what I understand some people who have urges for young people just like some people have urges for people of the same gender. Obviously I have no problem if someone acts upon their urges towards people of their gender, but do have problems with people who act upon urges to young people. I would assume that in such case some form of voluntery conversion therapy would be useful. Similarly if someone has urges towards their gender but would prefer for whatever reason (to be more normal, to follow their religion, to have kids, ...) they would like to have urges towards the opposite gender, I see no problem with voluntery conversion therapy.

One big pet peeves of mine with a lot of left leaning people is that they are pro gay because "it is their choice and doesn't effect me" yet they are against voluntery conversion even though the same logic holds. And before anyone says "they aren't proven to work", maybe we should allow scientists to work on that. After all, if armies have been able to convince POWs to fight for them patriotically against their country, I don't think it should be that hard to get people to love certain people

[commoner]

> to be more normal

The assertion that opposite-sex attraction is "normal" and that same-sex attraction is abnormal is not supported by science. Homosexuality was removed from the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) in 1973.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

The American Psychological Association advises against conversion therapy because it is ineffective and potentially harmful:

> The American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates. Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation. Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.

https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.p...

[ponsin]

> The assertion that opposite-sex attraction is "normal" and that same-sex attraction is abnormal is not supported by science.

I don't know what "science" you are referencing but according to the NY times [0] 0.003% of marriage in the US are homosexual. To put that into context 0.006% of the population has 2 different colored eyes [1]. I would call someone with the same color in both eyes to be more "normal" than someone with different colors.

Now to the point. It may be true that there is no scientifically proven conversion therapy, but that is the case with many psychological characteristics. Many people have mental "things" (I won't call it a mental issue because it is not inherently bad, but you get my point) that science has no proven way to treat. But scientists continue to try to find a treatment. Of course there are limits to what they can try. Shocking genitalia is not allowed for any therapy and as such is not allowed for conversion therapy. But there are many other effective methods that psychologists use to help people who want to change.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/upshot/the-most-detailed-... [1] https://www.medicinenet.com/heterochromia_iridis/article.htm...

[commoner]

> I don't know what "science" you are referencing but according to the NY times [0] 0.003% of marriage in the US are homosexual.

That is an absolutely terrible argument, and your numbers are also incorrect. The NYT article said, "In 2014 there were 183,280 same-sex marriages in America, roughly a third of 1 percent of all marriages," which is 0.33%, not 0.003%.

More importantly, same-sex marriage was not recognized nationwide in 2014, and the Supreme Court only later declared same-sex marriage a fundamental right in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Finally, the number of gay marriages is not an accurate indicator of the number of gay people. Prior to Obergefell v. Hodges, only 7.9% of LGBT Americans were married to their same-sex partner.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-...

About 4.5% of Americans identify as LGBT in a 2017 Gallup poll, and the current percentage is likely to be higher due to social stigma, which is stronger for older generations who lived during periods of lower LGBT acceptance. Only 1.4% of traditionalists (born 1913-1945) identify as LGBT, while 8.2% of millennials (born 1980-1999) do the same.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population...

The APA makes it very clear that homosexuality is normal.

> The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Bullough, 1976; Ford & Beach 1951; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953). Homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder (APA, 1975).

> APA is concerned about ongoing efforts to mischaracterize homosexuality and promote the notion that sexual orientation can be changed and about the resurgence of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).

https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.p...