You do, but you’re going to have to completely upgrade your wardrobe first.
Don’t encourage him. More straight men having gay sex makes for more bad gay sex. People just need to stick to what they are good at.
The point I always like to make is, if a life in Christ is an effective cure for homosexuality, then why are there so many gay priests?
You’d think that at least part of the process would be to try to foster a sexual attraction for the opposite sex using pornography or whatnot. A load of religious ritual is a boner-kill no matter which side of the plate you bat on.
In a word, no.
Surely there are some black people who don’t want to be black. And surely some of them can “pass.” And yes, they have the right to do so if that’s their choice. But they cannot stop being black, any more than a gay person can stop being gay. All you can change is your behavior and society’s perception of you. But what really needs to be addressed is that person’s self-loathing that created the conflict in the first place. Attempting to change the person’s innate identity only exacerbates the problem; to attempt to help him become straight (or white) only reinforces the erroneous belief that being gay (or black) is wrong.
I forgot about them. Do they try to un-gay you or do they “just” jail or kill you?
I don’t think there was one specific procedure, it depended on the philosophy of the practicioner. The behaviorists would tend to aversion therapy and the psychoanalysts would talk about parental issues, etc. Currently there is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. (NARTH) There website is at http://www.narth.com
From an article at religous tolerance:
One Dr. Nicolosi of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic reports that the results at his clinic are:
What are short people supposed to do that don’t want to be short?
You’re aware that none of this represents any kind legitimate science? That Nicolosi is a complete fraud? That the AMA and the APA rejects all of this as garbage? That there is no such thing as being “cured” of homosexuality?
This would be exposure, not aversion.
Sorry. I put therapy in quotes because, as you say, the intervention can’t be therapeutic, as by definition there is no disorder.
I especially like the matter of fact assertion that Moses wrote Leviticus.
This relies directly on whether sexual orientation is immutable or not (which is not the same as whether it’s “genetic,” “biological,” or “learned”).
The acceptable practice is to adhere to professional standards for psychotherapy for any condition or trait that the client finds distressing. This would include talking about the client’s distress, understanding the context and effects of the distress, and helping the client to make decisions that are realistic and meaningful in the client’s life. If a client says s/he doesn’t want to “be gay,” a therapist can talk about this, ask questions, provide resources, and help the person make behavior changes if that is what the client wants to do. I don’t know whether people can change their sexual orientations, but people can change their behaviors in a variety of domains. First, though, one would want to understand why the person wanted to make those changes and what doing so would mean in the person’s life. The therapist might also provide education and ask questions to alert the client that the client’s perspective may not be universal, or that the client’s response derives from social contextual issues. This is a different approach from automatically assuming that homosexuality is a problem that should be cured.
For comparison, lots of people go into therapy wanting to “be happy.” I can appreciate this wish, but there isn’t a technique to make someone “be happy.” There are ways to help the person work toward a goal (e.g., turn off that emo already and go for a walk). In addition, the intervention might include exploration of the client’s beliefs about “being happy” to understand if that’s truly the goal (as contrasted with “avoiding sadness” or “having fulfilling relationships”), and whether the goal is realistic (“I never want to be sad” is neither realistic nor, perhaps, desirable; “I want to be as happy as everyone else is” may be an accurate comparative appraisal or may be an incorrect evaluation of others’ happiness, a la “everyone else is happy all the time”).
This was an intervention tried by the Nazis in the concentration camps. It didn’t work.
If you went to a therapist to explore the question of your sexual orientation, I would hope that the therapist would not make assumptions one way or another about you, but would facilitate your exploration of the topic. You have a “right” to do what you want with yourself. You don’t have a “right” to professionals who must assist you. For example, I agree that you have the right to drink. That imposes no burden on a therapist to assist you to drink more effectively or frequently.
ETA: One of the problems with NARTH is that they are loathe to share their data, so it is difficult to evaluate any of their claims. Arguably, as an organization they are not engaged in true research because one of the standards of empirical research is to present findings and data in a way that permits replication studies or reanalysis of your data.
I remember some articles a few years ago implicating Mormon groups that were big on “conversion therapy.” The method used by these groups was the application of electric shocks.
Yes, I do remember correctly.
Perhaps that was tongue in cheek, but as I undestand it at least wrt Catholic teachings (and I’m sure someone will step in and correct me if I’ve been misinformed) the concensus is that being gay isn’t a sin. *Acting *on desires one would have as a gay person, however, is. A gay priest having no romantic or sexual relationships is not in any kind of violation. Neither would he be making any attempts to “degayify” himself.
In threads about whether homosexuality is at all immutable, the general stance seems to be that it’s not, and you’re gay or straight.
In threads about whether gay and straight are absolutes, the general stance seems to be that it’s a big mushy continuum. Here is such a thread:
Now, I’m sure it’s possible to hold both those opinions at the same time without conflict, but I’m not sure the board, as a whole is being consistent across these two topics.
If Kinsey is correct and there are individuals who are partly attracted to one sex, but mostly the other, then why wouldn’t it be possible to reinforce one element and play down the other? I’m not saying it should be done, but why couldn’t it?
Love in Action doesn’t get too specific here…http://www.loveinaction.org/default.aspx?pid=146
…but the Zach Stark debacle of a few years ago revealed that they had a dizzing number of rules about keeping a close eye on the “clients,” not letting them have much time alone, not allowing them to have any media that wasn’t religious, and so on.
I think your point here about our (and I mean that in the global SDMB “our”) inconsistent opinions as to what’s absolute and what isn’t is right on. I really don’t even have the beginning of an answer to it, but I think a straight person should see if therapy can work in making them gay. Just a thought, and I truly mean no snark by it. Just seems fair that the conversion should work both ways, if indeed it works at all 
I hope it was a joke, but I should say that there are many gay priests who would never touch altar boys, and the ones who did are not necessarily gay. The evangelical protestant teaching seems to be that homosexuality is a sin and akin to a mental disorder that can be “cured.” Catholic teaching seems to follow the Augustinian teaching that something is not a sin until you act upon it, so gays are ok if they’re celibate. The Catholics never bought into the ex-gay movement except in isolated cases.
I don’t understand . . . on TV and in movies, you see a person in confession saying, “I had impure thoughts” and having to do penance. If the only “transgression” is feeling attracted to another person of my own sex or to whom I am not married, why is this being confessed? Just to encourage the person to pray for strength to avoid acting on these thoughts? That’s not penance.
Interesting question. In conventional medicine, we have cosmetic surgery - we’ll give people breast implants, facelifts, and so on, and none of these procedures are medically necessary. (Setting aside, for the moment, cases of genuine disfigurement, which can raise serious quality-of-life issues.) We let people assume all the risks of major surgery (anesthesia, etc) in return for fairly modest gains.
By a similar token - what would be wrong with something like “cosmetic psychotherapy”? If someone felt they’d be happier gay, or straight, or more/less of a thrill-seeker, or what-have-you - then why shouldn’t they have access to treatment from practitioners willing to provide it? It wouldn’t be necessary treatment - but neither is most cosmetic surgery. And just as in cosmetic surgery, if we allowed this sort of psychological/psychiatric treatment, we’d expect there to be some kind of standards and accountability.