Incest

[Stopper]

I hope the fact I've been looking up "treatments for homosexuality" at work isn't easily traceable by the IT staff here. Unless it helps that cute asian guy hook up with me before I get cured.

Christ, no, don't put that there. He'll see it.

[2dimes]

We need some clarification here Stopper.

You like him but don't want sex or you just want to sleep with him and you don't really like him much.

[Stopper]

We need some clarification here Stopper.

You like him but don't want sex or you just want to sleep with him and you don't really like him much.

Well, I don't know. I like him and want to have sex, but they keep telling me it's a disease.

[2dimes]

Meh, everything's a disease these days. Face it you've got high cholestoral from deep fried everything too.

Ask him out and tell us how it goes in say, the spam thread.

[Aegnor]

I thought this thread was about Incest. Unless you're talking about homosexual incest. Hmm..

[Backglass]

Something I've already stated many times. Unfortunately it is the case at present that most treatment programs are faith based. The reason for this isn't a lack of scientific results, conditioning is very effecting at changing any behaviour, including homosexuality. Being opposed to homosexuality, or offering treatment for it has become politically incorrect thanks to liberals like Bertros and the gay and lesbian movement itself.

I am sure the Scientologists say the same thing about their brainwashing...I mean..uh..."Behavior Modification & conditioning".

Christian fundamentalists are not as concerned with defying politically correct trends because their moral code is centred on the bible instead.

Of course not. Cultists always believe that THEIR fairy tales are RIGHT and everyone else is wrong. But their rabid belief in superstition does not prove anything, other than their brainwashing expertise.

What is truly sad is that they don't use the skills they have honed to help people like jay stop smoking or the obese lose weight. Instead they attack those they fear instead of those who really NEED the help.

[chewyman]

there is no health risk in being attracted to someone of the same sex. You keep saying there is, though. I think you mean - 'certain sexual practices carry a higher risk than others.' You keep talking about AIDS and cancer, when merely being homosexual does not, of itself, increase one's chance's of contracting anything. Certain behaviours may increase risk, but surely that is what freedom of choice is all about?

Splitting hairs here. There is no health risk behind wanting to cut your wrists either, the health risk only comes about when you actually do cut your wrists. Therefore (assuming we want to stop people cutting their wrists), according to your logic, wanting to cut your wrists is completely harmless.

i mean - conditioning. FFS. Have you never seen/read a clockwork orange? Look - if being foolhardy means I take more risks with my life, does that make foolhardiness unnatural? not everyone is foolhardy - should the foolhardy be conditioned? After all it would be a cruel and selfish world if we did not force this treatment on them for their own good.

I've watched the movie, although I hear the book is a thousand times better. If you're afraid of the word 'conditioning' then you don't know enough about the subject. Conditioning is a natural phenomenon that we all experience from birth until death. The manipulation of a natural process should be feared no more then when scientists use new drugs that work with our natural immune system. Surely we would therefore both agree that conditioning is not a bad thing, but that moral guidelines need to be set (just like with all other technological advancements). Huh, now we're starting to sound like the pro-life movement, Oh noez!!! I draw my line between mental disorders and different personalities, it's not an all or nothing situation like you would have us believe.

And again, please name me one other 'illness' whose 'sufferers' expend as much energy in telling the world they are not sick. And what are you talking about political correctness for? Are you actually suggesting that doctors have betrayed their hippocratic oath because they are scared of offending people? Seriously? Have you considered that scientific and humanitarian opinions might have changed?

The fact that homosexuality is a sui generis mental disorder does not prove that it is not a mental disorder. I can think of plenty of 'sufferers' who want their conditions treated as 'illnesses' to justify themselves, which follows the same logic but in reverse. Concerning the removal of homosexuality from the DSM-II, I've got a few questions. I'd like you to explain the scientific reasoning behind the APA's decision? Was it a near unanimous decision (the answer is no, the vote barely passed with 58% in favour)? Did numerous gay and lesbian protests have no impact on the decision, despite the fact that they used violence and other forms of protest without any scientific evidence to support them (eg 1970 APA conference when psychiatrists who considered homosexuality a disorder were not allowed to talk because they were jeered down into silence by uneducated members of the Gay Liberation Front)?

That response suggests you haven't read the paper.

Indeed. Still proves my point though, so I'll take it.

I thought this thread was about Incest. Unless you're talking about homosexual incest. Hmm..

Yeah I know, I was really hoping to avoid it but I couldn't just go and leave your question unanswered.

Something I've already stated many times. Unfortunately it is the case at present that most treatment programs are faith based. The reason for this isn't a lack of scientific results, conditioning is very effecting at changing any behaviour, including homosexuality. Being opposed to homosexuality, or offering treatment for it has become politically incorrect thanks to liberals like Bertros and the gay and lesbian movement itself.

I am sure the Scientologists say the same thing about their brainwashing...I mean..uh..."Behavior Modification & conditioning".

Which part? That conditioning is very effective (if you disagree you simply don't know what you're talking about)? That most programs at the moment are faith based (well that's your own argument as well so surely you aren't doing that)? That opposition to homosexuality is politically incorrect (despite the fact that I've already been compared to the church of Scientology, fundamentalist Christians and fascists, as well as being labeled a homophobic bigot)?

Of course not. Cultists always believe that THEIR fairy tales are RIGHT and everyone else is wrong. But their rabid belief in superstition does not prove anything, other than their brainwashing expertise.

What is truly sad is that they don't use the skills they have honed to help people like jay stop smoking or the obese lose weight. Instead they attack those they fear instead of those who really NEED the help.

Hmm, good point. Really puts you libertarians and the gay-lesbian movements in a new light. I thoroughly approve.

[Neutrino]

Illness
unhealthy condition; poor health; indisposition; sickness.

That is a definition for illness. How does homosexuality fall under that definition? Homosexuality itself dosent increace the risk of anything, though certain acts associated with it do (but so does skydiving and bungiejumping and people who do those things aren't classified as having a 'mental disorder').

My stance on almost everything is "As long as your actions or opinions don't impact myself or anyone else in any significant, negative way, I don't care what the hell you do."
How does homosexuality or even homosexual sex affect anyone else but those taking part in it? Yes, there are increased risks assosiated with it, but it is, just like everything else, it's their choice.

P.S. Dot you think it a tad hypocritical to be decrying violent video games and yet be a big Invader Zim fan (from the avatar, I assume you are)? I mean, Zim is out to destroy humanity! You cant get much more violent than that. By watching Invader Zim, children with an IQ of 12 or so may get the idea that destroying humanity is a worthy cause. You would have to be a hugely impressionable idiot to assume that if you see something it is automatically all right to do it. If violent video games should be banned because they convince idiots that hurting people is good (and by this, I assume you mean FPS's, since you really cant be convinced to do things by the other types; C&C: Generals is definatly raising a generation of children to take over the USA and China and to form a terrorist group called the GLA, militarise them all and then blow eachother up) then so should action movies and really any kind of contact sport.
If you want to go down the 'lets protect children from everything' road, you have to go the whole way.

[heavycola]

there is no health risk in being attracted to someone of the same sex. You keep saying there is, though. I think you mean - 'certain sexual practices carry a higher risk than others.' You keep talking about AIDS and cancer, when merely being homosexual does not, of itself, increase one's chance's of contracting anything. Certain behaviours may increase risk, but surely that is what freedom of choice is all about?

Splitting hairs here. There is no health risk behind wanting to cut your wrists either, the health risk only comes about when you actually do cut your wrists. Therefore (assuming we want to stop people cutting their wrists), according to your logic, wanting to cut your wrists is completely harmless.

I wasn't splitting hairs at all, and your comparison doesn't work. Why would someone want to slit their wrists? Suicidal people do need help. They are at risk. Being attracted to someone of the opposite sex, however, is not a health risk. You are suggesting that gay men want to have unprotected anal sex with partners of unknown sexual history merely because of their gender preference, which is a homophobic generalisation. I don't go around having unprotected sex with strange women because a) i'm in a relationship b) i understand the risks involved c) i'm too mean to drink in bars. Obviously many straight and gay men and women DO behave that way, but to suggest that all gay men do so is, well, bigotry. if you're not suggesting that gay men are especially promiscuous then why not condition everyone who has one-night stands?

i mean - conditioning. FFS. Have you never seen/read a clockwork orange? Look - if being foolhardy means I take more risks with my life, does that make foolhardiness unnatural? not everyone is foolhardy - should the foolhardy be conditioned? After all it would be a cruel and selfish world if we did not force this treatment on them for their own good.

I've watched the movie, although I hear the book is a thousand times better. If you're afraid of the word 'conditioning' then you don't know enough about the subject. Conditioning is a natural phenomenon that we all experience from birth until death. The manipulation of a natural process should be feared no more then when scientists use new drugs that work with our natural immune system. Surely we would therefore both agree that conditioning is not a bad thing, but that moral guidelines need to be set (just like with all other technological advancements). Huh, now we're starting to sound like the pro-life movement, Oh noez!!! I draw my line between mental disorders and different personalities, it's not an all or nothing situation like you would have us believe.

Human manipulation of a natural system is by definition unnatural, which is exactly what you are saying is wrong with homosexuality. Of course we are all conditioned to an extent - by our environment, upbringing, parents, for example - these are all natural. What you are talking about is not. And again, which unnatural act is OK and which isn't?
And who decides who needs to be changed and for what reasons? 'Therefore we would both agree that conditioning is not a bda thing' - what conditioning? Conditioning a baby to respond to its father's voice? Straightening gay people against their will? Brainwashing political dissenters?

Concerning the removal of homosexuality from the DSM-II, I've got a few questions. I'd like you to explain the scientific reasoning behind the APA's decision? Was it a near unanimous decision (the answer is no, the vote barely passed with 58% in favour)? Did numerous gay and lesbian protests have no impact on the decision, despite the fact that they used violence and other forms of protest without any scientific evidence to support them (eg 1970 APA conference when psychiatrists who considered homosexuality a disorder were not allowed to talk because they were jeered down into silence by uneducated members of the Gay Liberation Front)?

So violence and 'uneducated' protesters managed to sway psychiatric and scientific opinion? really? Does that work? 'OK, OK, i'll vote yes if it means that dyke will stop shouting at me.'
This was in the seventies, almost 40 years ago. Hardly 'very recently'- it was only a decade after the civil rights movement - this is only meant as a vague parallel, but 50-60 years ago black people were regarded in many parts of the US as inferior human beings. The length of time since then is not a guide to that opinion's rightness or wrongness.

[Backglass]

That conditioning is very effective (if you disagree you simply don't know what you're talking about)?

Of course brainwashing if effective...but that doesnt make it right. (If you disagree you simply don't know what you are talking about).

That most programs at the moment are faith based (well that's your own argument as well so surely you aren't doing that)?

The ONLY programs are faith based...because these people have decided, through their ancient mythological intrepretations, that a certain way of living is wrong and must be changed. Meanwhile normal people realize this to be false.

That opposition to homosexuality is politically incorrect

Not to mention ill-informed. Have you ever spoken to a gay person at length about their homosexuality?

(despite the fact that I've already been compared to the church of Scientology, fundamentalist Christians and fascists, as well as being labeled a homophobic bigot)?

Well if you decide to align yourself with those crowds, you get compared to them, yes.

Hmm, good point. Really puts you libertarians and the gay-lesbian movements in a new light.

Who are you talking to?

I thoroughly approve.

About time. There's hope yet!

[chewyman]

That is a definition for illness. How does homosexuality fall under that definition? Homosexuality itself dosent increace the risk of anything, though certain acts associated with it do (but so does skydiving and bungiejumping and people who do those things aren't classified as having a 'mental disorder').

Note the change of words from mental illness to mental disorder quite a while ago. I already apologised for that, there is a distinct difference between the two in psychology and I labeled it incorrectly. I've heard your argument quite a few times, but surely the same applies to any and all mental illnesses/disorders. Depression itself, for example, does not increase your risk of committing suicide. Certain acts associated with depression (slitting your wrists) are heavily associated with committing suicide (go figure ). Unless you are telling me that depression is not a mental disorder either this argument is entirely groundless.

My stance on almost everything is "As long as your actions or opinions don't impact myself or anyone else in any significant, negative way, I don't care what the hell you do."
How does homosexuality or even homosexual sex affect anyone else but those taking part in it? Yes, there are increased risks assosiated with it, but it is, just like everything else, it's their choice.

Another point that I've already addressed. This degage world you live in sounds like a horribly selfish and cruel place to me. You are telling me that when people do things that do not impact on you you couldn't care less. People who deliberately make themselves sick (eg anorexics) don't need our help? People so depressed they attempt suicide shouldn't be helped, told that people love/care for them and that what they are doing is just an easy and selfish escape? If somebody was about to jump off a bridge I would try and stop them, if you wouldn't then that should tell you something pretty upsetting about your personality.

P.S. Dot you think it a tad hypocritical to be decrying violent video games and yet be a big Invader Zim fan (from the avatar, I assume you are)? I mean, Zim is out to destroy humanity! You cant get much more violent than that. By watching Invader Zim, children with an IQ of 12 or so may get the idea that destroying humanity is a worthy cause. You would have to be a hugely impressionable idiot to assume that if you see something it is automatically all right to do it. If violent video games should be banned because they convince idiots that hurting people is good (and by this, I assume you mean FPS's, since you really cant be convinced to do things by the other types; C&C: Generals is definatly raising a generation of children to take over the USA and China and to form a terrorist group called the GLA, militarise them all and then blow eachother up) then so should action movies and really any kind of contact sport.
If you want to go down the 'lets protect children from everything' road, you have to go the whole way.

I encourage you to actually read what I say without jumping to conclusions next time. I am not against violent video games, cartoons, movies etc. I made the undeniable point that violence has a habituating effect that desensitises people to it. The fact that this is happening is offset by the constant conditioning throughout our lives spent within society that tell us that violence is wrong.

I wasn't splitting hairs at all, and your comparison doesn't work. Why would someone want to slit their wrists? Suicidal people do need help. They are at risk. Being attracted to someone of the opposite sex, however, is not a health risk. You are suggesting that gay men want to have unprotected anal sex with partners of unknown sexual history merely because of their gender preference, which is a homophobic generalisation. I don't go around having unprotected sex with strange women because a) i'm in a relationship b) i understand the risks involved c) i'm too mean to drink in bars. Obviously many straight and gay men and women DO behave that way, but to suggest that all gay men do so is, well, bigotry. if you're not suggesting that gay men are especially promiscuous then why not condition everyone who has one-night stands?

My comparison doesn't work... why exactly?
I don't know why people would slit their own wrists, I've never suffered from depression. That doesn't mean that other people don't, which they clearly do. Why would somebody want to engage in homosexual sex other than that they are bisexual or homosexual? Why would somebody want to slit their own wrists unless they were terribly depressed? To draw the line between homosexuality and homosexual intercourse is splitting hairs and should be treated as such.

Human manipulation of a natural system is by definition unnatural, which is exactly what you are saying is wrong with homosexuality. Of course we are all conditioned to an extent - by our environment, upbringing, parents, for example - these are all natural. What you are talking about is not. And again, which unnatural act is OK and which isn't?
And who decides who needs to be changed and for what reasons? 'Therefore we would both agree that conditioning is not a bda thing' - what conditioning? Conditioning a baby to respond to its father's voice? Straightening gay people against their will? Brainwashing political dissenters?

Different uses of the word 'unnatural' does not prove anything other than the inadequacies of the English language, congratulations. One definition is premeditated unnatural (which I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with, unless you oppose all technology) and one is non-premeditated unnatural (unless you think that homosexuality is just a choice, in which case you'd be thrown out of the gay-lesbian movement). That's where the line is drawn.

So violence and 'uneducated' protesters managed to sway psychiatric and scientific opinion? really? Does that work? 'OK, OK, i'll vote yes if it means that dyke will stop shouting at me.'
This was in the seventies, almost 40 years ago. Hardly 'very recently'- it was only a decade after the civil rights movement - this is only meant as a vague parallel, but 50-60 years ago black people were regarded in many parts of the US as inferior human beings. The length of time since then is not a guide to that opinion's rightness or wrongness.

You're avoiding answering my questions.

Of course brainwashing if effective...but that doesnt make it right. (If you disagree you simply don't know what you are talking about).

Under your logic psychologists would be banned from using hypnotism to treat smoker's addictions. Please tell me whether or not you support the use of hypnotism in this situation?

The ONLY programs are faith based...because these people have decided, through their ancient mythological intrepretations, that a certain way of living is wrong and must be changed. Meanwhile normal people realize this to be false.

Normal of course being the gay-lesbian movement as opposed to the psychologists. A question you conveniently ignored answering.

Not to mention ill-informed. Have you ever spoken to a gay person at length about their homosexuality?

It's always nice to know that people are actually reading my posts before just jumping to conclusions.
Go back and read my very first post answering Aegnor's question on my position towards homosexuality.

Well if you decide to align yourself with those crowds, you get compared to them, yes.

Yes, it's so mature to fall back on name calling and labeling with political hot words. That's sure to prove your arguments are valid!

Who are you talking to?

Huh? Sorry, I just thought that last paragraph was referring to the libertarian and gay-lesbian movements. It made just as much sense as it did applying it to me.

About time. There's hope yet!

Not really, I got lost so very, very long ago...

[Stopper]

So far, Chewyman:

a) You've given no reason why anal sex is inherently significantly more dangerous than any other sexual activity (mentioning slitting wrists in the same breath was a bad idea, to say the least),

b) Given that anal sex is not significantly more dangerous than other forms of sexual activity, you've given no reason why homosexual people should be "treated" against their will,

c) You have stated that psychiatrists have had success at turning "homosexuals into heterosexuals", without providing credible, or indeed any, evidence for this. (No-one has, by the way, touched on the matter of whether behaviour modification therapy actually does anything to change orientation.) I've provided counter-evidence in the form of an easily-accessed paper published in the British Medical Journal, which you seem to not want to read.

d) Your acceptance that women do not have "nerve glands" ("nerve glands", incidentally, do not exist anyway) that give them sexual pleasure when semen enters the mouth was surprisingly grudging and hard to extract.

In short, you're beginning to look a lot like a homophobic bigot who wants to regulate the harmless activities of others for no other reason than that you don't like what they do.

I could also say your attitudes to women could be pretty questionable as well, but I suspect your belief in these "nerve glands" is more to do with extreme gullibility and a reluctance to ever check your facts, which might also explain your attitudes towards homosexuals.

[gethine]

but I suspect your belief in these "nerve glands" is more to do with extreme gullibility and a reluctance to ever check your facts,

nerve glands sound awesome, where can i get some for the missus? are they like breast enlargements?

[chewyman]

OK I've really got to wrap this discussion up everybody. I apologise but this could go on for months longer without us ever reaching an agreement and I'm in the middle of studying for exams. I'll wait 24 hours, answer any questions at that time and leave it at that. Feel free to continue the discussion without me.

a) You've given no reason why anal sex is inherently significantly more dangerous than any other sexual activity (mentioning slitting wrists in the same breath was a bad idea, to say the least),

b) Given that anal sex is not significantly more dangerous than other forms of sexual activity, you've given no reason why homosexual people should be "treated" against their will,

In short, you're beginning to look a lot like a homophobic bigot who wants to regulate the harmless activities of others for no other reason than that you don't like what they do.

Diseases such as HIV/AIDS spread primarily through the homosexual population. Infected bisexuals then proceed to have sexual intercourse with heterosexuals and the diseases spread. Now this isn't to say that HIV/AIDS and other STI's cannot be contracted in other ways, obviously they can. The fact of the matter is, however, that HIV/AIDS would not be as prevalent as it is in today's society if not for homosexuality. Sodomy is associated with much higher risks of STI transmission (including hepatitis and AIDS) than vaginal or oral sex. Anal sex is also closely associated with fecal incontinence and anal carcinoma. There are plenty of suppository drugs specifically inserted into a patient's anus because that area readily absorbs just about anything. The risk isn't just to the person being sodomised, there is also a greater risk of cervical and penile cancers.

c) You have stated that psychiatrists have had success at turning "homosexuals into heterosexuals", without providing credible, or indeed any, evidence for this. (No-one has, by the way, touched on the matter of whether behaviour modification therapy actually does anything to change orientation.) I've provided counter-evidence in the form of an easily-accessed paper published in the British Medical Journal, which you seem to not want to read.

I gave a link to one method of treatment called the Playboy Theory, if you want more that's up to you to find. I have read that paper, but admittedly only recently (exams and your original post suggested it supported therapy). Apologies for that. Like all good psychology papers this one admits many of its own faults and I think the most important is that "the treatments do not seem to have been extensive" and "the nature of the study means that we cannot address its efficacy". Therefore your paper proves nothing other than that treatments have a long way to go before reaching a perfect success rate (which I already said).

d) Your acceptance that women do not have "nerve glands" ("nerve glands", incidentally, do not exist anyway) that give them sexual pleasure when semen enters the mouth was surprisingly grudging and hard to extract...
I could also say your attitudes to women could be pretty questionable as well, but I suspect your belief in these "nerve glands" is more to do with extreme gullibility and a reluctance to ever check your facts, which might also explain your attitudes towards homosexuals.

It wasn't at all grudging. I told you my source and immediately admitted that I couldn't prove it. I accept that in all likelihood it appears not to be the case. I was wrong in this, I'm big enough to admit that.

[Stopper]

Diseases such as HIV/AIDS spread primarily through the homosexual population. Infected bisexuals then proceed to have sexual intercourse with heterosexuals and the diseases spread. Now this isn't to say that HIV/AIDS and other STI's cannot be contracted in other ways, obviously they can. The fact of the matter is, however, that HIV/AIDS would not be as prevalent as it is in today's society if not for homosexuality. Sodomy is associated with much higher risks of STI transmission (including hepatitis and AIDS) than vaginal or oral sex. Anal sex is also closely associated with fecal incontinence and anal carcinoma. There are plenty of suppository drugs specifically inserted into a patient's anus because that area readily absorbs just about anything. The risk isn't just to the person being sodomised, there is also a greater risk of cervical and penile cancers.

This is no response to the statement "You've given no reason why anal sex is inherently significantly more dangerous than any other sexual activity". (I'm also a little unclear as to who exactly is supposed to suffer a greater risk of cervical cancer from homosexual anal sex.)

The issue of STD transmission is one that is a problem for both homosexual and heterosexual people, and is addressed for both groups in the same way.

The variation in risk between both groups is irrelevant, since if no measures are taken by anyone to prevent STD transmission, then diseases like HIV/AIDS will be spread throughout the entire population regardless. This has happened in Africa. Clicky.

The risk for both groups of people can be negligible if STD transmission is properly guarded against. Therefore, it is still not clear how, properly approached, homosexual sexual activity is any more dangerous than heterosexual sexual activity.

Listing all the other possible side-effects of anal sex is pointless, too. I could, if I were so inclined, do the same for vaginal and oral sex, and it would be just as long, and prove nothing.

c) You have stated that psychiatrists have had success at turning "homosexuals into heterosexuals", without providing credible, or indeed any, evidence for this. (No-one has, by the way, touched on the matter of whether behaviour modification therapy actually does anything to change orientation.) I've provided counter-evidence in the form of an easily-accessed paper published in the British Medical Journal, which you seem to not want to read.

I gave a link to one method of treatment called the Playboy Theory, if you want more that's up to you to find. I have read that paper, but admittedly only recently (exams and your original post suggested it supported therapy). Apologies for that. Like all good psychology papers this one admits many of its own faults and I think the most important is that "the treatments do not seem to have been extensive" and "the nature of the study means that we cannot address its efficacy". Therefore your paper proves nothing other than that treatments have a long way to go before reaching a perfect success rate (which I already said).

I see no link to any "Playboy Theory". All I asked for was credible evidence that any homosexuals have had their orientations changed.

You seem to have confused the paper I linked to with the one you're talking about. For what it's worth, the conclusion of the paper I linked to stated:

Results Most participants had been distressed by their attraction to their own sex and people in whom they confided thought they needed treatment. Although some participants chose to undergo treatments instead of imprisonment or were encouraged through some form of medical coercion, most were responding to complex personal and social pressures that discouraged any expression of their sexuality. While many participants found happiness in same sex relationships after their treatment, most were left feeling emotionally distressed to some degree.

Conclusion The definition of same sex attraction as an illness and the development of treatments to eradicate such attraction have had a negative long term impact on individuals.

[heavycola]

I wasn't splitting hairs at all, and your comparison doesn't work. Why would someone want to slit their wrists? Suicidal people do need help. They are at risk. Being attracted to someone of the opposite sex, however, is not a health risk. You are suggesting that gay men want to have unprotected anal sex with partners of unknown sexual history merely because of their gender preference, which is a homophobic generalisation. I don't go around having unprotected sex with strange women because a) i'm in a relationship b) i understand the risks involved c) i'm too mean to drink in bars. Obviously many straight and gay men and women DO behave that way, but to suggest that all gay men do so is, well, bigotry. if you're not suggesting that gay men are especially promiscuous then why not condition everyone who has one-night stands?

My comparison doesn't work... why exactly?
I don't know why people would slit their own wrists, I've never suffered from depression. That doesn't mean that other people don't, which they clearly do. Why would somebody want to engage in homosexual sex other than that they are bisexual or homosexual? Why would somebody want to slit their own wrists unless they were terribly depressed? To draw the line between homosexuality and homosexual intercourse is splitting hairs and should be treated as such.

What IS homosexual sex? Anal sex? Practiced by straight couples too. Why do you keep calling it 'homosexual sex'? It belies your prejudice. And what about blowjobs? or have only women got those special receptors? Do gay men indulge in risky promiscuity because they are gay?
You avoided MY question. If it's unprotected, casual sex you are talking about - up the bum - then does everyone who engages in this behaviour need to be conditioned?

Human manipulation of a natural system is by definition unnatural, which is exactly what you are saying is wrong with homosexuality. Of course we are all conditioned to an extent - by our environment, upbringing, parents, for example - these are all natural. What you are talking about is not. And again, which unnatural act is OK and which isn't?
And who decides who needs to be changed and for what reasons? 'Therefore we would both agree that conditioning is not a bda thing' - what conditioning? Conditioning a baby to respond to its father's voice? Straightening gay people against their will? Brainwashing political dissenters?

Different uses of the word 'unnatural' does not prove anything other than the inadequacies of the English language, congratulations.

What??? 'Unnatural' seems a pretty easy word to define to me. You say homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong - leaving aside just what a pile of bollocks that is, i don't think it's mere verbal gymnastics to point out that your 'cure' is also unnatural.

So violence and 'uneducated' protesters managed to sway psychiatric and scientific opinion? really? Does that work? 'OK, OK, i'll vote yes if it means that dyke will stop shouting at me.'
This was in the seventies, almost 40 years ago. Hardly 'very recently'- it was only a decade after the civil rights movement - this is only meant as a vague parallel, but 50-60 years ago black people were regarded in many parts of the US as inferior human beings. The length of time since then is not a guide to that opinion's rightness or wrongness.

You're avoiding answering my questions.

In 1973 the APA voted 13-0 (that is a unanimous decision, by the way) to declassify homosexuality as an illness. Judd Marnor, one of its officers, said the board had decided there was "no reason why ... a gay man or woman could not be just as healthy, just as effective, just as law abiding, and just as capable of functioning as any heterosexual."

The reason this has become such a debate is because your opinions are, according to the supposedly pressurised and easily swayed APA that you cited, over 30 years out of date.
You keep talking about 'homosexual sex' and it seems to me that the idea of two men going at it just disgusts you. Fair enough. But arguments for conditioning and 'curing' these people based entirely on the fact that anal sex is riskier behaviour are themselves based on a set of bigoted generalisations - that all gay men have anal sex, that they are all promiscuous and uninformed (or just don't care). To paraphrase bertros somewhere in this thread, this is just homophobia disguised as concern, and it's pretty disgusting.