[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!

[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...

[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?

[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.....

[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).

[bots]

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"

[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"

[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

[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.

[poppsywoppsy]

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

[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.

[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??

[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.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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 there. 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.

..yeah that is exactly what it is, it’s reinforcing that, that person is right to hate themselves and encouraging shame, which will only ever create more self hate and as you say, until a possible extreme of suicide may be the end result...so extremely unethical, un-Christian, un-Catholic and really Un everything...nothing positive at all in any way...

[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

[bots]

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.

Shouldn't laugh but couldn't help myself

[Marches]

Manipulating people into dismissing someone when they say an opinion is inadvertently silencing someone and you said that was ok

Free speech isn’t as black and white as ‘you can speak = free speech!!!’ There is a grey area that people find loopholes around

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Marches

Manipulating people into dismissing someone when they say an opinion is inadvertently silencing someone and you said that was ok

Free speech isn’t as black and white as ‘you can speak = free speech!!!’ There is a grey area that people find loopholes around

This is what we call both a reach and a misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is.

Freedom of Speech is very simple, unless you are preaching hatred or inciting violence then it typically comes under the umbrella of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the right to share your opinion and the right for others to have their views on those opinions and vice versa.

It's not the right to force people to accept or respect what you have to say, you have the right to say it but, unless they breach one of the previous exemptions I mentioned, anyone is free to not accept or respect or do what they want with that opinion. This is the part you seem to struggle with.

Trying to make out that Shane is actively manipulating the house into silencing Ann is nothing but an incredible reach on your part. Nobody is telling Ann what to think or preventing her from speaking, no matter how much you tie yourself in knots trying to make that a reality, it's simply not the case.

This is just you doing what I mentioned before, debasing people's rights to respond and right to freedom of speech just because you don't like what they have to say.

[Paula D]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

This is what we call both a reach and a misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is.

Freedom of Speech is very simple, unless you are preaching hatred or inciting violence then it typically comes under the umbrella of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the right to share your opinion and the right for others to have their views on those opinions and vice versa.

It's not the right to force people to accept or respect what you have to say, you have the right to say it but, unless they breach one of the previous exemptions I mentioned, anyone is free to not accept or respect or do what they want with that opinion. This is the part you seem to struggle with.

Trying to make out that Shane is actively manipulating the house into silencing Ann is nothing but an incredible reach on your part. Nobody is telling Ann what to think or preventing her from speaking, no matter how much you tie yourself in knots trying to make that a reality, it's simply not the case.

This is just you doing what I mentioned before, debasing people's rights to respond and right to freedom of speech just because you don't like what they have to say.

Ah now, this is where you've completely walked yourself into it. Shane is definitely very actively trying to manipulate the house, the whole house has stated so except for Malika. And that is preaching hatred. He wants people to hate Ann. Why else would he start throwing out random facts and figures about her past at people? What has any of that got to do with their time in the house?

You can try tying yourself up in knots all you like trying to pretend he's simply disagreeing with her views but every single one of the people who are living with him in the house don't think so.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Paula D

Ah now, this is where you've completely walked yourself into it. Shane is definitely very actively trying to manipulate the house, the whole house has stated so except for Malika. And that is preaching hatred. He wants people to hate Ann. Why else would he start throwing out random facts and figures about her past at people? What has any of that got to do with their time in the house?

You can try tying yourself up in knots all you like trying to pretend he's simply disagreeing with her views but every single one of the people who are living with him in the house don't think so.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Again, never a good idea to blindly agree with someone just because it's against someone you mutually dislike. Questioning your friends is not a bad thing.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Paula D

Ah now, this is where you've completely walked yourself into it. Shane is definitely very actively trying to manipulate the house, the whole house has stated so except for Malika. And that is preaching hatred. He wants people to hate Ann. Why else would he start throwing out random facts and figures about her past at people? What has any of that got to do with their time in the house?

You can try tying yourself up in knots all you like trying to pretend he's simply disagreeing with her views but every single one of the people who are living with him in the house don't think so.

No, it really isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_s...United_Kingdom

Perhaps you should try to understand what hate speech and preaching hatred before you post and 'walk yourself right into it.'

It's an incredible reach and very silly to make out that Shane is doing anything but utilising his own right to freedom of speech, Ann and anyone else is free to do the same. I know you dislike freedom of speech when it doesn't benefit you but please try to understand what preaching hatred and hate speech is before you try to use it in an argument.