[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.