AIBU to think believing science can change sexual orientation is a logical and reasonable assumption?

[haggistramp]

From Ann Widdicome who believes that as science can change a person's sex then its logical that science could change a person's sexual orientation? To be clear I dont believe this, I dont think science (be it hormones or extreme plastic surgery) can change a person's sex, let alone a person's sexual orientation but for those who do believe humans can change sex, do you agee? If not, why not?

That would mean being actively involved in gay sexual relationships.

That's hardly a lifestyle. Anymore that straight people having sex with each other is a lifestyle. It's just what people do.

If god changes some people's sexuality after they pray to him (but doesn't do the same favour for others mind you), why make them gay in the first place? Could you, if you are straight, pray to god to make you gay?

Yeah, why isn’t there people advocating for straight conversion therapy? I wonder...

I tried to be straight. I got married to a man and had a child with him. I did all the straight lifestyle things. I really really tried. It didn’t work. Maybe it was because I didn’t prey? Maybe if I got on my knees and begged god enough he’d make me fancy men instead.

Well I’m quite content being a lesbian and I ain’t begging anyone, especially bigoted homophobes. Sorry, your homophobia is not my issue.

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

This is the paradigm I follow. Do you see "hate" in there?

I do not know why some people are able to become ex-gay and some people are not. Not every prayer is answered, for reasons that we don't understand.

Well, I see a load of bloody codswallop, myself.

But if that is the 'paradigm you choose to follow', good for you.

Others follow a different 'paradigm'. One that doesn't make such a mountain out of a very personal molehill. Not your circus, not your monkeys.

All these posters saying "uh, nobody believes someone can change sex, are you referring to people living as another gender?"

Wtf does that mean? That someone was assigned masculine at birth but now wants to be feminine so is a transwoman? Doesn't that equate stereotypes with being a man/woman? What the fuck do you mean by "living as another gender"

They close the sexual act to the gift of life.

So does marriage to an infertile person or marriage to a post-menopausal woman. So should these be banned too?

They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity

So if two gay people are happily married this is not genuinely affective?

How do you explain this? Do you know any gay couples?

The problem has to do with design.

Two people of the same sex can never naturally create a child together. Their bodies were not designed to do so.

A person who is naturally infertile or whose body is too old to bear children is unable to conceive because of the function of their body, not because of the way it was designed. If they were fertile, conception would be possible.

This is the difference.

I think you misread the statement. There is no genuine affective complementarity between two people of the same sex. There isn't designed to be. Men and women are designed to complement each other, to be different, but to be different in a way that makes their union complete. (This is not to say that a single person is not "complete" in and of him/herself, but rather that men and women are designed to be "opposites" of each other.) With a same sex couple, this is not possible.

So if two people love each other and are happy together and work together to help each other to bear life's burdens that doesn't count because in another scenario some other people would have been able to procreate?

What if one of them is a very effeminate man or a very masculine woman - does that help with your complement thing?

And what happens if a straight couple are not typically masculine/feminine or even if the man has more feminine traits and the woman more masculine ones- should they give up on procreation?

No, it still does not help with the complement thing.

We could take this one step further. What if the two people in question were siblings? Or a parent and child? What if one was a minor who considered that he/she was "old enough" to want an adult relationship with someone more than twice his/her age?

Armin Meiwes killed and ate another man with that man's express permission. (You can look this up. It's true.) Did that mean that this was okay because it was two consenting adults?

Come to think of it, my dh has been described (and not completely unjustly) as camp. Far more into traditionally feminine things like knitting and sewing and baking. I otoh am more career minded and less physically timid. Does our undeniable ability to procreate cancel out our failure on the affective complementary front? (this all does seem very complicated, compared to my simplistic approach of "I like this person, I'm going to share my life with him")

Oh please. You did not just equate homosexuality with incest, paedophilia, and cannibalism? Really?!

What if the two people in question were siblings? Or a parent and child? What if one was a minor who considered that he/she was "old enough" to want an adult relationship with someone more than twice his/her age?

All of these things are banned in our society because of the unequal power relationships and potential for exploitation; also in the case of sibling marriages because of the increase of genetic risks- hardly a consideration between two gay people.

Don't see how any of that is relevant for 2 adult gay people who decide to live together.

I don't see homosexuality to be about sex though. It's about who you fall in love with, about feelings, about who you want to be close to emotionally. It's not about sexual penetration or lack of or the mechanics of sex. There are plenty of people who are gay and who have to get married to someone of the opposite sex, throughout history, and in many countries. Many are very deeply unhappy and it's not about who they have sex with, it's about who they love and fall in love with. If it was as simple as sexual attraction, it may be less complex but as far as I can see (with DS being gay) it's about who you love.

Nobody "has" to get married, or at least they shouldn't. Such a marriage is invalid.

A person who is gay may choose to remain single and celibate; this does not by definition mean that their life will be miserable.

Keep in mind that no one has an absolute "right" to a sexual relationship; if one did, that means someone else has the obligation to have sex with you. That is not tolerated in our society. Therefore, sexual love is a privilege; it is not a right.

Oh I think you are so wrong. I don't know which planet you live on, but many people in many countries around the planet earth are forced into getting married, culturally, socially, by their religious group, peer pressure. Goodness me.

Nobody "has" to get married, or at least they shouldn't. Such a marriage is invalid. Sorry mate, you're still stuck in last century. Because such a marriage is very much valid - with all the legal protections a heterosexual marriage has.

A person who is gay, or who is straight may choose to remain celibate. But equally, they have the same choice not to. Whatever doesn't make them miserable.

No one has an absolute right to a sexual relationship, no. That's what drives those rabid little incels bonkers, isn't it? However, everyone, gay, straight, trans, whatever, has the right to pursue a sexual relationship if they wish to do so. (And of course, the person they pursue has the right to say no). They have the right to enjoy a sexual life, assuming they can find a partner.

And also a person who is straight may choose to not enter into a relationship but being gay shouldn't mean that you are forced to be celibate or not to have relationships. Equality is a human right, if you want to talk about rights.

You do not have an unlimited right to do whatever you want with your body or with the body of another person, even if they consent to it.

You do not have an unlimited right to do whatever you want with your body or with the body of another person, even if they consent to it.

However, agnurse, you do have a legal right to have consensual sex with another adult, regardless of their gender.

So if two people who know each other and love each other decide that they want to get married- perfectly legally- and this (unlike e.g. killing & cannibalism) does not contradict any other law, there is no unequal power relationship, no genetic risks to a third person, and they do not adhere to a religious sect that forbids it- could you explain exactly why they shouldn't?

Actually, no, you don't have a "right" to have sex. As I mentioned before, if you have a "right", someone has a duty to ensure that you receive that right. This would mean someone has an obligation to become your sexual partner - their consent would be meaningless.

As an example, a veterinarian has a privilege to examine an animal. But that doesn't mean that the owner must submit his animal to be examined. That's a privilege.

I’m torn here. I loathe Ann Widdecome and I think she is a bigot.

I do though think I follow her logic. Until recently sex/gender l wasn’t considered chanegeable- if you d like it, tough. Likewise your sexuality was considered fixed and if you didn’t like it, tough.

So now, when ways are being sought to change a person’s sex, it follows ways could be sought to change a person’s sexuality.

Obviously to me, (maybe not to Widdecome) it is a step backwards to suggest that people should be helped to change their sexuality- far better that they be supported to feel comfortable in who they are and work to ensure they are socially accepted.

I suppose that’s the argument against helping people to change their bodies- maybe we should be supporting them to feel comfortable in who they are and feel more socially accepted?

I don’t know, I’m not a trans person, and I don’t know anyon who is. But seems to me this is the logic, and I can’t say I can muster up much of and argument against it?

Please note I said a right to have consensual sex with another adult. Meaning that both parties consent - yes?