[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Paula D

People with their own agenda don't read articles, they just read one-liners off Twitter or Facebook and run with that.

So much easier to get outraged over a soundbite you see.

The article seems to be based on the case of his rights and the vilification of his therapist rather than on the actual therapy. It doesn't come across as her supporting it to me. It comes across as her feeling sympathy for him and his therapist.

It really shows how people read a headline without reading the actual news.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Reminder, Ann has been retired for 8 years now. She was retired when she wrote that article.

I'm not stupid jaxie,I am well aware she left parliament but not campaigning in 2010.
I've actually listened to Ann speak so have a knowledge as to her.

She was retired too when Cameron brought in the gay marriage bill.
She still made plenty noise on that.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I'm not stupid jaxie,I am well aware she left parliament but not campaigning in 2010.
I've actually listened to Ann speak so have a knowledge as to her.

She was retired too when Cameron brought in the gay marriage bill.
She still made plenty noise on that.

She's a roman catholic. The problem lays with the pope et al. Most established religion does not support homosexuality in its teachings.

I'm all for scrapping religion.

You are trying to kick the dog for the actions of its master.

[poppsywoppsy]

Can I ask if the person involved in conversion therapy has the right to refuse it?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Ann was speaking out on behalf of someone else who wanted to have this therapy and wasn't allowed. She wasn't supporting it personally, she was supporting his right, which is really different matter. Perhaps he needs to do it to convince himself it does not work, sometimes it's hard to be in someone elses head. As with many things to do with Ann, some people pick up a sentence and see black and white and ignore the grey area of what she really said.

Excellent post Jaxie this is what I was trying to point out,but people just latch on to the things they don't understand as they don't like her,pretty ridiculous really,I have been reading more on her stuff in her column and far from the 'nasty,racist,bigot' as claimed on here,she is actually a very caring kind woman,one thing good from it all is I have learnt a lot of stuff on her,some I don't agree with but respect she has opinions I don't , but is she as bad a painted on here? NO bloody way.People really need to look at the bigger picture.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Ann was speaking out on behalf of someone else who wanted to have this therapy and wasn't allowed. She wasn't supporting it personally, she was supporting his right, which is really different matter. Perhaps he needs to do it to convince himself it does not work, sometimes it's hard to be in someone elses head. As with many things to do with Ann, some people pick up a sentence and see black and white and ignore the grey area of what she really said.

She was giving her own views on conversion therapy nobody else's, she used somebody else in the article as an example to highlight her stance but it seems pretty clear to me she's in favour of it and considers it an acceptable form of therapy. Throughout the article she positions it as something that should be considered 'helpful'. I really don't see the grey in this - she supports it as a legitimate therapy and promotes it by telling people it can be helpful... this is all directly from the article, her own words, what she believes.

Does anyone defending Ann on this not find it in the least bit odd that she'd completely omit the dangers of conversion therapy and how it's discredited by medical professionals, and only portrays it in the article as something that could be helpful (which isn't even the case).

[joeysteele]

[QUOTE=jaxie;9838937]She's a roman catholic. The problem lays with the pope et al. Most established religion does not support homosexuality in its teachings.

I'm all for scrapping religion.

You are trying to kick the dog for the actions of its master.[/QUOTE


She chose to leave the C of E to join the RC church.
She wasn't born into Catholicism, she chose it and it's rules voluntarily.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by camertone

Ann hates everyone who is different from her and has no empathy for others. Her voting record is awful.

Dissing Meghan Markle is another example. Seems like everyone already forgot about that.

I'm not in raptures over Megan Markle either. So what are you saying?

[jaxie]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;9838957]

Originally Posted by jaxie

She's a roman catholic. The problem lays with the pope et al. Most established religion does not support homosexuality in its teachings.

I'm all for scrapping religion.

You are trying to kick the dog for the actions of its master.[/QUOTE


She chose to leave the C of E to join the RC church.
She wasn't born into Catholicism, she chose it and it's rules voluntarily.

She swapped one church for another. Why do people believe at all? In my view its brain washing. Not sure what your point is here tbh.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

She was giving her own views on conversion therapy nobody else's, she used somebody else in the article as an example to highlight her stance but it seems pretty clear to me she's in favour of it and considers it an acceptable form of therapy. Throughout the article she positions it as something that should be considered 'helpful'. I really don't see the grey in this - she supports it as a legitimate therapy and promotes it by telling people it can be helpful... this is all directly from the article, her own words, what she believes.

Does anyone defending Ann on this not find it in the least bit odd that she'd completely omit the dangers of conversion therapy and how it's discredited by medical professionals, and only portrays it in the article as something that could be helpful (which isn't even the case).

Thing is jamie, she is entitled to that opinion if she wants it. Did she ram it down peoples throats in the house like Shane J? Did she suggest that he, Wayne and Amanda should book a course of treatment without further delay?

Everything I have seen of Ann points to her being a very kind and caring person. That's what she has shown to her housemates every day. What does she get in return? Obnoxious twats trying to get her to say something that is not politically correct so they can score a point. Do people really think that is going to further their agenda? I can tell you clear as day now it won't. People will bite back at that type of forced agenda. Shane has done more harm than good for his "cause"

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Sullen Girl

i just saw this in another thread but it got locked so i’m continuing the discussion here teehee

what are your thoughts?

in MY opinion she’s scum

Your opinion then is a problem and does not reflect you in a light that is better than the one you are shining on Ann.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Thing is jamie, she is entitled to that opinion if she wants it. Did she ram it down peoples throats in the house like Shane J? Did she suggest that he, Wayne and Amanda should book a course of treatment without further delay?

Everything I have seen of Ann points to her being a very kind and caring person. That's what she has shown to her housemates every day. What does she get in return? Obnoxious twats trying to get her to say something that is not politically correct so they can score a point. Do people really think that is going to further their agenda? I can tell you clear as day now it won't. People will bite back at that type of forced agenda. Shane has done more harm than good for his "cause"

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Paula D

People with their own agenda don't read articles, they just read one-liners off Twitter or Facebook and run with that.

So much easier to get outraged over a soundbite you see.

..to be fair, that’s not actually true, Paula...that people just tend to read one liners and fit those with agendas and leanings because many, many people don’t do that at all..(..whichever housemate they support..)...I’ve been googling myself to read the article which Ann wrote...and with that, it wasn’t actually anyone who was asking for help with the pshychologist, it was an undercover reporter who was investigating what type of ‘therapy’ would be offered and available...the psychologist who suggested conversion therapy has since been struck off for malpractice for doing so...so it feels like Ann wrote an article in support of something, without more research herself, as Jamie said...research into what would be involved in conversion therapy and how it makes a person feel ashamed of who they are in their sexuality...something which is so abhorrent that I’m sure Ann wouldn’t believe her God and beliefs would feel it had any positive values at all to any human being...

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

She was giving her own views on conversion therapy nobody else's, she used somebody else in the article as an example to highlight her stance but it seems pretty clear to me she's in favour of it and considers it an acceptable form of therapy. Throughout the article she positions it as something that should be considered 'helpful'. I really don't see the grey in this - she supports it as a legitimate therapy and promotes it by telling people it can be helpful... this is all directly from the article, her own words, what she believes.

Does anyone defending Ann on this not find it in the least bit odd that she'd completely omit the dangers of conversion therapy and how it's discredited by medical professionals, and only portrays it in the article as something that could be helpful (which isn't even the case).

I'm sorry but the article didn't read like that to me at all. She didn't say anything about the actual therapy or supporting it just that the man had the right to try it if that was what he felt he needed to do.

You or I have no idea what Ann actually knows about the actual therapy. I personally know nothing though I'll agree it doesn't sound a great idea since it has been scientifically proved homosexuality is in your chromosones.

However I'm not sure that is the same as agreeing someone has no right to try it if its out there and that is what they want.

I don't agree with Ann on her views, though she explains herself well. I am very anti religion so there is a huge gulf between her and I. But I also don't agree she deserves the vilification she is getting. When the op calls her scum and people start baying for her to be punished it makes those who claim to be defending right and good look like the people with the stakes and pitchforks.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Thing is jamie, she is entitled to that opinion if she wants it. Did she ram it down peoples throats in the house like Shane J? Did she suggest that he, Wayne and Amanda should book a course of treatment without further delay?

Everything I have seen of Ann points to her being a very kind and caring person. That's what she has shown to her housemates every day. What does she get in return? Obnoxious twats trying to get her to say something that is not politically correct so they can score a point. Do people really think that is going to further their agenda? I can tell you clear as day now it won't. People will bite back at that type of forced agenda. Shane has done more harm than good for his "cause"

There's having an opinion and there's actively promoting something that's harmful to people, that's a few steps beyond just expressing an opinion.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying about Ann, I don't think she's the devil and yes she could be a lot worse (and there are good things about her too) but I think she crosses a line with this.

Originally Posted by jaxie

I'm sorry but the article didn't read like that to me at all. She didn't say anything about the actual therapy or supporting it just that the man had the right to try it if that was what he felt he needed to do.

You or I have no idea what Ann actually knows about the actual therapy. I personally know nothing though I'll agree it doesn't sound a great idea since it has been scientifically proved homosexuality is in your chromosones.

However I'm not sure that is the same as agreeing someone has no right to try it if its out there and that is what they want.

I don't agree with Ann on her views, though she explains herself well. I am very anti religion so there is a huge gulf between her and I. But I also don't agree she deserves the vilification she is getting. When the op calls her scum and people start baying for her to be punished it makes those who claim to be defending right and good look like the people with the stakes and pitchforks.

She doesn't explicitly say conversion therapy is a good thing, the reason I read it the way I did was because of how she positions it as being something that could be helpful for people, and she certainly does do that. This encourages it for people who are looking for help and could ultimately be very damaging for them, I just find it so irresponsible.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Thing is jamie, she is entitled to that opinion if she wants it. Did she ram it down peoples throats in the house like Shane J? Did she suggest that he, Wayne and Amanda should book a course of treatment without further delay?

Everything I have seen of Ann points to her being a very kind and caring person. That's what she has shown to her housemates every day. What does she get in return? Obnoxious twats trying to get her to say something that is not politically correct so they can score a point. Do people really think that is going to further their agenda? I can tell you clear as day now it won't. People will bite back at that type of forced agenda. Shane has done more harm than good for his "cause"

and as for the rest of your post welcome back BOTS

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by jaxie

The article seems to be based on the case of his rights and the vilification of his therapist rather than on the actual therapy. It doesn't come across as her supporting it to me. It comes across as her feeling sympathy for him and his therapist.

It really shows how people read a headline without reading the actual news.

The article to me is almost completely about people attacking Christians whilst leaving other religions alone tbh. It seems to have came out at a time when Christians were attacked left right and centre (whats new) and thats the angle I think she was going for tbh, nothing to do with actually caring or not caring about gay people. Or even the therapist involved tbh, except for them being Christian.

I don't really read it as in support of conversion therapy, more...against the witch hunt of Christians. With the 'I care about people' angle thrown in to make the article seem better

I have actually read a lot about conversion therapy because of this thread. Its not something I ever knew much about tbh...I knew that horrible horrible practices went on. I thought that sometimes therapy was practiced that was more...ethical (though cannot see how on earth it could work either way). Seems this is actually true. I also didn't know it was still legal in many parts of the US.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The article to me is almost completely about people attacking Christians whilst leaving other religions alone tbh. It seems to have came out at a time when Christians were attacked left right and centre (whats new) and thats the angle I think she was going for tbh, nothing to do with actually caring or not caring about gay people. Or even the therapist involved tbh, except for them being Christian.

I don't really read it as in support of conversion therapy, more...against the witch hunt of Christians. With the 'I care about people' angle thrown in to make the article seem better

I have actually read a lot about conversion therapy because of this thread. Its not something I ever knew much about tbh...I knew that horrible horrible practices went on. I thought that sometimes therapy was practiced that was more...ethical (though cannot see how on earth it could work either way). Seems this is actually true. I also didn't know it was still legal in many parts of the US.

tibb educating us all!

Tbh I didn't think such therapies were allowed nowadays. I think Ann often comes from a religious slant as it is very much a part of her make up and who she is, that unshakable belief. Coming from the opposite view I'd love to have a chat with her!

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Tbh I didn't think such therapies were allowed nowadays.

They aren't in many places. Apparently its still fine in a lot of states in the US though. Most likely the more...religious states. I thought it would not be allowed anywhere tbh, as there is no proof it works and as dezzy said, it can cause harm. And apparently one of the main codes of medics is 'do no harm' (though they seem to throw that our of the window for certain treatments)

[Paula D]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..to be fair, that’s not actually true, Paula...that people just tend to read one liners and fit those with agendas and leanings because many, many people don’t do that at all..(..whichever housemate they support..)...I’ve been googling myself to read the article which Ann wrote...and with that, it wasn’t actually anyone who was asking for help with the pshychologist, it was an undercover reporter who was investigating what type of ‘therapy’ would be offered and available...the psychologist who suggested conversion therapy has since been struck off for malpractice for doing so...so it feels like Ann wrote an article in support of something, without more research herself, as Jamie said...research into what would be involved in conversion therapy and how it makes a person feel ashamed of who they are in their sexuality...something which is so abhorrent that I’m sure Ann wouldn’t believe her God and beliefs would feel it had any positive values at all to any human being...

I get that you read the article and I respect your take on it. But do you really think the OP read the article?

No, they just read it in another thread that was locked and decided to call scum, it's not helpful in any way shape or form to read a one-liner and call people names.

I think this thread has opened up a very interesting topic that not a lot of people knew about so maybe it's a good thing that Ann writes such articles? She's not exactly out on the street dragging gay people into therapy is she?

[Tom4784]

Conversion therapy is not unlike a psychological version of self harming, we would never think 'oh well, if he thinks it'll help him, let him open a vein' It's dangerous and when it escalates it'll likely end badly.

Nobody should encourage and/or endorse anyone going through with practices that don't work and often results in increased chances of suicide for the people who are victimised by these practices.

The only way people who are unhappy with their sexuality (which is, let's face it, often because of outside factors) will ever find happiness is with acceptance of who they are. There's no sexuality change operation and there never will be. Sexuality is just a part of who we are, if it could be changed we would have likely found out how by now.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Your opinion then is a problem and does not reflect you in a light that is better than the one you are shining on Ann.

so calling someone scum for having disgusting views and morals is wrong? what kind of backward logic sis??

[AnnieK]

Its not legal here is it? Although, I'm sure there will still be people willing to attempt it. I had never heard of it being practised here, thought it was just an American thing. Shocking.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Its not legal here is it? Although, I'm sure there will still be people willing to attempt it. I had never heard of it being practised here, thought it was just an American thing. Shocking.

It was until (oddly enough) the church of england called for it not to be

In 2007, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the main professional organisation of psychiatrists in the UK, issued a report stating that: "Evidence shows that LGB people are open to seeking help for mental health problems. However, they may be misunderstood by therapists who regard their homosexuality as the root cause of any presenting problem such as depression or anxiety. Unfortunately, therapists who behave in this way are likely to cause considerable distress. A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client's sexual orientation. This can be deeply damaging. Although there are now a number of therapists and organisations in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible."

After reports of a Liverpool church starving individuals for three days as a means to "cure" their homosexuality, the Church of England announced it considers conversion therapy "fundamentally wrong" and demanded the Government ban it.

I know wiki can be edited by anyone, but I followed many links on here and it did seem to be accurate

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

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Paula D

I get that you read the article and I respect your take on it. But do you really think the OP read the article?

No, they just read it in another thread that was locked and decided to call scum, it's not helpful in any way shape or form to read a one-liner and call people names.

I think this thread has opened up a very interesting topic that not a lot of people knew about so maybe it's a good thing that Ann writes such articles? She's not exactly out on the street dragging gay people into therapy is she?

...I don’t know if they read the article but the OP did open it and ask for us all to discuss, which we are and as you say, Paula..its been very interesting to do so, so a good thread, I think...for me, I’m just trying to equate in my head any caring, religious person who would surely feel abhorred at anything that would cause anyone to feel ashamed of who they were...and the writing of any article, which appeared to support in the way of...’they have a right to../...it’s something that should be offered...’....I mean for anyone who did hate themselves because of their sexuality and sought therapy..?...then surely that therapy would involve working on positives, to enable them to feel less self-hating, to feel all the very opposite things of shame...I understand Ann’s feelings about the equality of therapies being available but the nature of the therapy itself in terms of ethics is also essential to consider, and Like Jamie’s, I’m surprised she didn’t consider more before penning an article...


...and no, the only person ive seen her dragging, is Anton du Beke around the dance floor in Strictly.....