Feels like Twitter storm is brewing over Ann Widdecombe's latest comments on homosexuality. In the Express (better bedfellows you could not find!) she has voiced support for allowing "unhappy gays" to seek ex-gay therapy following the Patrick Strudwick's (one of my least favourite left-wingers) entrapment of a therapist offering this service upon request.
You know what? I agree with her.
First a few provisos:
1) I don't think ex-gay therapy works.
2) I think it can be very damaging especially to the self-esteem of young LGB people (as can it's anti-trans equivalent)
3) I can't for the life of me understand why a grown adult would have a problem with being gay but that's my own bias I suppose.
4) No one should be forced to attend ex-gay therapy by anyone else (I'm looking at you parental types out there).
But... if someone is desperately unhappy being gay and believes ex-gay therapy will help them, who are we to stop them doing so of their own freewill? So there you go, case closed. Etc.
Except... where Widdecombe's argument stumbles is on the example she has used. For if one wishes to be accredited by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, then one should follow their requirements for that accreditation. Lesley Pilkington failed to do this, and thus hasn't really got a defense. There's nothing actually stopping ex-gay therapists operating nor stopping "unhappy gays" seek therapy.
So what was Ann Widdecombe's point again? Oh yes, we're all picking on Christians and not Muslims and that is simply not fair!
It's nice to know she never changes. Good ol' Ann, mad as a hatter as always.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist