[LatteLazy]

>If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus

I get where you're coming from, and as long as no one is compelling the "victim" I think they should be free to make their own mistakes.

That said, it's very well proven that you cannot change your sexual orientation and anyone claiming you can is a fraudster whether they dress as a priest or medical professional or an "accountability partner" or anything else. That very much is a bogus belief.

[powerslacker]

There are numerous cases of changes to "sexual orientation".

[LatteLazy]

We can argue the validity of people's claims to have changed their orientation back and forth, but the science is in:

>Some of the largest studies report little to no reported change in sexual orientation, and reports of success are unpersuasive due to serious methodological limitations and sometimes major flaws in study designs.

>Evidence of harm associated with conversion therapy outweighs reports of some benefits, such as social support and a sense of belonging. In addition, the reported benefits are common to most forms of talking therapy or support groups and could be provided by other, more affirmative, approaches that mitigate risks of harm.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conversion-therap...

Oct 2021.

[powerslacker]

Your bias and the bias of the study you cited are painfully obvious and assume a particular point of view as valid while rejecting others. The whole concept of the study is framed in a utilitarian value system. If you had a thousand similar studies you wouldn't proven anything to someone who does not hold to an empirical and utilitarian worldview because the questions that the study is asking are ultimately philosophical, epistemological, and moral. As such these questions transcend the usefulness of observational science. The study is worded in such a way as to sound very thorough but if you look at Appendix 2 you can see that even by empirical standards the evidence they have chosen to consider is slanted to a particular subset of the available data, let alone the anecdotal evidence which surrounds the researchers on all sides.

In other words all you've truly pointed out with this post is that the various members of the UK government have policy goals and that they are willing to use science as a cudgel to achieve their policy goals.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Would you mind providing citations of some of these cases?

[powerslacker]

I would mind. I can tell you that I have personal connections to persons who have abandoned their so called "sexual orientation".

It is trivial to search for examples. There have been entire organizations of individuals claiming successful change of their sexual lifestyle. The problem is that you have a whole host of individuals and organizations who are opposed to the very concept of being able to change due to their assumptions and presuppositions about God and sin. This leads them to attempt to smear or discredit any movement or attitude that opposes their own.

In my opinion, the onus of proof is on the communities, organizations, and individuals pushing the "born this way" rhetoric. In the 1990s and into the 2000s we were told there was a "gay gene" or that the right combination of hormones in utero was the culprit. It is now 2022 and no such 'smoking gun' has been found, yet there are still persons claiming they are no longer homosexual through the power of God.This is despite the media vitriol against such claims and the illegalization of even benign therapy. The naturalistic position claims the scientists just need more time and eventually they will find that people are born along some sexual spectrum instead of the traditional biblical position that sexuality and even attraction is behavioral.

Sorry to not give you what you are asking for directly, but I'm not interested in debating the validity of specific incidents over HN. You might have good luck discussing the issue with a competent Christian theologian or pastor.

[Shared404]

> and the illegalization of even benign therapy.

Conversion therapy is not benign. Your phrasing here leads me to suspect that the personal connections you refer to are people who learned that it is easier to lie to those they know, and sometimes even themselves, than to take other options.

I hope for their sake that I am wrong.

[powerslacker]

Not all conversion therapy is benign. If you are talking about using shock therapy then we are in agreement. That's not really what I'm talking about. Counseling could be an example of benign therapy - depending on the context.

And yes, you are wrong.

[Shared404]

> Counseling could be an example of benign therapy

Even counseling based conversion therapy is not benign. It would get your license revoked as a therapist in most places (in the US, not familiar with other places) well before it was illegal. The problem with counseling based conversion therapy is it relies on guilt and manipulation of the person involved.

> And yes, you are wrong.

I'm afraid that you are one of the people they would be lying to in this case, and thus I cannot take your word on this. To be clear, this is not an indictment of you, just based on what I have seen of similar situations in my life.

For context - I am an LGTBQ+ member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who has spoken and worked with lot's of cishet and lgbt people from my church and others. If you want to discuss more directly, my email is open, though I'm not always able to respond quickly. I also get a lot of spam at that address, so if you email please let me know here as well.

Edit: If you would prefer to discuss here so that the discussion stays public, I am also open to that. I know people who prefer either way.

[trasz]

“Counseling” you mention, being a way to brainwash the “patient” into hating themselves more efficiently, is also harmful.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> And yes, you are wrong.

Could you elaborate on this? How can you be certain that your personal acquaintances have not simply convinced themselves of something that is contradictory to their lived experience? It seems to me that social pressures could be very impactful to that end.

Your language conveys certainty, which is why I ask about that.

[wizofaus]

> I can tell you that I have personal connections to persons who have abandoned their so called "sexual orientation"

What are you trying to suggest by the use of "so-called" and scare quotes around "sexual orientation"? It's pretty well established that sexual orientation can be fluid in some individuals, and I don't doubt there are people who spend many years enjoying heterosexual relationships only to determine at a later point they prefer same sex relationships. The reverse may well also happen from time to time. Not really sure what point you're trying to make at all.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> You might have good luck discussing the issue with a competent Christian theologian or pastor.

My experience with people of faith has always been to be told that I must have faith in order to understand it. Is there a path to understanding that doesn't involve circular logic?

[powerslacker]

All appeals to an ultimate authority are circular by nature. Its the philosophical equivalent of bedrock.

That being said, you can understand Christianity and the Christian philosophy/worldview perfectly well without faith. You need faith in the capacity and work of the true and living God, the Lord Jesus, the Messiah in order to be saved from sin.

Intellectual understanding of the claims of Christianity and belief in its claims are totally separate.

This is one of the reasons you should speak to those who are competent teachers. You might try and ask Dr. James White if you have specific questions. I'm happy to continue the conversation here but the format is 'limiting' to say the least.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

I see; unfortunately, that's a disappointing answer. Maybe it's also worth pointing this out:

> Intellectual understanding of the claims of Christianity and belief in its claims are totally separate.

I don't think I've ever seen a clear separation of these things. At any rate, if I choose not to believe in the claims then I will be unwelcome by the congregation. In practice, these things seem to go hand-in-hand most commonly.

Also, I would like to thank you for taking the time to reply thoughtfully! I do believe you've been very honest and approaching the conversation in good faith (I have difficulty reading this without it coming off as snide, so please just take it at face value).

(I'm sorry if it is frustrating but I am personally not interested in continuing this conversation privately.)