Loading...

资料库

时代讲场文章(至2017年2月14日)

谈「认识同性性倾向」的教育

电邮:info@bshs.org.hk

(一)

鉴於近年来有团体积极推动「正确认识同性性倾向」的教育,向包括青少年在内的社会大众,大力灌输尚没有科学真凭实据的「同性性倾向与行为乃天生、自然、健康、不宜及不能改变」之论说,引起愈来愈多家长和教育工作者的关注,及质疑这种「认识」和「教育」是否正确,本学社就此表达以下意见。

关於「同性性倾向」

「同性性倾向」不是单指渴望与同性建立密友关系的倾向(Homo-emotional),而是也指对同性有性行为欲望的倾向(Homo-sexual),这亦是多数人未能理解的部分,因为同性身体有的,其实自己也有,渴望与同性作性行为的背後,会否涉及在某些心理下於性欲上不妥当的摆放,及这种性欲的摆放会否对身心与人伦的健康带来不良影响,是值得关心的课题。

对身体健康可有的影响

一、肛交的风险

关於「同性性倾向以至行为」对身体健康会否带来不良影响,可从肛交行为开始探讨,因为有同性性欲望倾向以至行为的,以男性较多,而根据香港中文大学医学院於二○○四年十月发布之《香港男男同性性行为调查》的研究报告,在香港的男同性恋者约25%曾有男男肛交的行为。

从生理与医学的层面分析,肛交是一种高危的行为,有机会导致肛裂、肛管脱垂、肛管直肠环损伤、直肠黏膜损裂、腹泻和失禁,此外,由於直肠黏膜层的损裂是不会带来痛楚感觉,及其可引致之溃疡与细菌入血是会直到事主出现严重并发症後才得知道,所以,肛交对其中一方的身体健康而言,其实是有很大的潜在危险。而对於另一方而言,尽管使用安全套作保护,可减少该方身体健康的潜在危险 (这其实亦显示出此行为本身的不安全与及已经偏离自然),但除非双方的角色不会互换,否则该方同样会遇上对方要面对的健康风险。

对於有人说,无论同性恋者或异性恋者都会有肛交的人,只要不是滥交,肛交便不会危险,然而,从上述分析可见,这讲法并不正确。此外,由於不可能有阴道交的缘故,所以,肛交是在男同性恋者的圈子中才是较为普遍。

二、口交的风险

有关口交是否安全的问题,可先从政府的爱滋病网上办公室资料了解:「口交,即用口部接触对方的生殖器官,这些行为都是有机会感染病毒,尤其当口腔或生殖器官是有伤口,所以若要减低感染机会,口交时亦应使用安全套或牙医用的薄膜。」这换句话也是说,口交并非没有风险的行为,而且,亦更有体液「病从口入」(例如肝炎)的事例。

虽然口交的风险无论於同性或异性间进行都会存在,但以生理上不可能有阴道交的同性性行为而言,涉及口交的情况会相对较多,承受风险的机会亦会相对较高。而尽管有安全套及牙医用的薄膜产品可减低某些风险,但选择口交者却会觉得这是带有不信任对方的意味,又或可带有自己是有滥交的意思,所以是会颇为抗拒使用,口交的潜在风险往往易被看轻又或被迫不顾。

三、 易倾向滥交的风险

对於有人说,无论同性恋者或异性恋者都有滥交的人,若从感染爱滋病病毒的数字来看,更可证明异性恋者有滥交倾向的情况,比同性恋者有滥交倾向的情况更普遍。然而,这是否事实呢?统计资料的显示并非如此,且恰恰相反,以下是一些海内外的数据和分析。

中国卫生部曾於二○○四年十一月底与联合国中国爱滋病专题组共同发表一份研究报告,指出中国於二○○四年九月底约有五百万至一千万男同性恋者,而处於性活跃期的男同性恋者约占性活跃期的整体男性2%至4%,及处於性活跃期的中国男同性恋者爱滋病感染率约达1.35%,男同性恋者在中国爱滋病高危人群中居第二位,仅次於注射毒品人士。此外,据中国疾病预防控制中心的调查,中国超过一半男同性恋者有多个不同性伴侣,最多者达一百个以上。

至於香港特区方面,根据卫生署的公布,香港於二○○四年共有二百六十八宗新感染爱滋病病毒个案的呈报,其中一百○七人是透过异性性接触受到感染,六十五人透过同性或双性性接触受到感染,廿一名为注射毒品人士,其馀七十五名的受感染途径则不详。若单从数字看,有一百○七人透过异性性接触受到感染,确比较於有六十五人透过同性或双性性接触受到感染为多,但若计入同性恋者只约占整体人口2%这个因子,後者的受感染率其实是比前者多约廿九倍,尽管按一些同性恋者团体所声称之同性恋者约占整体人口10%来计算,後者的受感染率也比前者多约四点五倍。这比率的背後是否表示後者总会比前者缺乏获得防预爱滋病的资讯,还是另有原因,值得探究。

又根据美国疾病控制防预中心的资料,美国於二○○三年间有216,486宗受爱滋病病毒感染的新呈报个案,其中经由男男性接触受感染的有72,475人,经由异性性接触受感染的有41,152人,因注射毒品而受感染人士有39,756名(其中8,623人且有男男同性性接触),而馀下62,833人是透过其他原因受到感染。美国是资讯发达的国家,对防预爱滋病的教育工作亦已推行近二十年,却仍有这首两个类别之数字的比例(且未计入同性恋者只约占人口2%至4%),当中实在有我们不宜迴避与扭曲的启示。

小结

我们诚然不应瞎猜或刻意标签个别爱滋病患者受感染的成因,既因为受HIV病毒感染的原因也可以是来自配偶、母体、输血、不慎给伤口接触到受感染的血液或精液等,更因为就算有病患者以前是曾作过一点不宜或不应作的事而导致受感染,他/她们也可能已经改变过来或希望可改变过来,及需要得到亲人、朋友和其他人的重新接纳与支持,且需要得到实质上的帮助与关怀(包括医疗及辅导方面)。然而,若政府或任何团体拟在学校的性教育或通识教育,又或拟在社区中心或青少年中心等之活动内加入「认识同性性倾向」的教育,则上述的医学知识以及统计资料和分析,都是不应避讳、隐瞒或扭曲,以致造成误导的。不过,现时的情况却并非如此,致使有些年轻人因对「同性性倾向」的认识不全面、不正确和被美化,而无知地认定这是天生、自然、健康、不宜及不能改变的事,甚至认定自己是本有这个「根本没有问题的倾向」,且将其他人的关怀、善劝、善导也说成是所谓「歧视」、「不科学」、「恐同症」等等,这都是不少家长与教育工作者所不忍看见,并深表关注的。

(二)

「性倾向教育」可属於性教育的範畴,也可属於通识教育的範畴,但无论於何者,「同性性倾向」都应是须仔细地作研究和探讨的课题。上文谈过「同性性倾向以至行为」对身体健康可有的风险,下面再谈对心灵与人伦健康可有的影响,以及「同性性倾向」是否不宜和不能改变。

对心灵与人伦健康可有的影响

关於「同性性倾向以至行为」对心灵及人伦健康可有的影响,且从同性的身体结构相同开始理解。由於同性身体结构相同,所以同性之间不能有真正的阴道交,同性性行为一般会以肛交、口交或互慰等进行。

先以肛交来说,肛交者通常在起初都会有很大的挣扎:「肛门并非卫生清洁的地方,自己真要这样做?」虽然这内里的声音可以被当事人暂时压下,但事实上,这潜意识仍会存在,及当事人仍可感到。把内里对「肛交欲望与行为」的警示声音压下,除了实质上会给双方当事人带来身体健康方面的潜在危险,及要在心理上留下隐忧外,若其中一方想减少部分风险而主动使用或向对方提出使用安全套的话,却会因为双方都知没有避孕的须要,所以反会引起对方猜度,怀疑另一方是否因背地里有滥交(又或如自己一样有滥交)而希望互相设防,以至无论是彼此设防或不设防,心底都会有所矛盾,这种人伦的发展,对心灵健康实非好事。此外,更有一些有肛交欲望与行为的同性恋者会用酗酒、吸食大麻或软性毒品等来麻醉与放纵自己,以逃避问题的癥结,情况令人担心。事实上,他们问题的癥结亦往往不是因为多数人不赞成同性性行为,而是因为连他们自己也逐渐感受得到这种有同性肛交行为关系的不健康和不妥,却又不能自己跳出肛交欲望的困扰,内心甚觉矛盾。

至於不涉及肛交的同性性行为,亦由於同性身体的结构相同,所以同性之间互相抚摸或口触对方的身体和性器,也会容易带来於心灵与人伦关系上不健康的影响。例如说,其中一方或甚至双方会容易对两人的肌肤与身材(或肌肉与身形)等不自觉地有不健康的具体相比,以致会容易孕育或加强自卑、自负、或自卑引发自负与自我保护等心理。也例如,若其中一方与其他同性或异性颇为谈得来与关系好及感情深,又或对其他同性或异性颇为欣赏等等,作为另一方的亦可能会容易产生同性感情的妒忌、异性感情的顾虑(因「双性恋」之可能),内心易感不安,并容易带来关系的冲突与内心的抑郁。又例如,若其中一方的外表有颇能令同性欣羡及异性受吸引的条件,则另一方容易落入於与其他同性和异性都作相比、容易敏感於对方与各同性及异性朋友的关系、容易感到受伤害……等等的情况或可能会更多,想「霸占对方」之欲望以及彼此关系的张力亦可能会更大。

虽然颇多研究指出,「与同性有性行为者」确较其他人容易落於情绪困扰、焦虑、抑郁等情况,不过,亦有人尝试把这现象归因於普遍社会对同性性行为不接纳及有些人对同性恋者「歧视」,以至当事人未能接纳自己的性取向所致。然而,且看荷兰(荷兰是自从一九九四年已有「性倾向歧视立法」的国家)於二○○一年由Netherlands Institute of Social Sexological Research、Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction 及Utrecht University共同进行调查研究而得出的Sandfort et al, 2001报告,这报告显示在该国的「与同性有性行为者」出现抑郁、焦虑、情绪困扰等情况之比率仍然高於其他人三至九倍。这调研的结果进一步带出背後值得深思的启示。

是否不宜改变

事实上,人的性欲望以至行为是有一定的「人伦健康界线」,及这些界线并不是个人设法否定便会不存在,人若不理会这些界线,是会容易引来於身体、心灵与人伦健康上的问题。从上面之细析可见,「同性性欲望以至行为」是颇容易会带来这三方面的负面影响,所以,实在难言「不宜改变」甚至「适宜巩固」,相反地,这其实是适宜寻求可得矫治的帮助。

虽然矫治「同性性倾向」一般或须三至五年时间,需视乎每一求助者之过往家庭背景与成长经遇或历程、日常生活的圈子和嗜好、对同性有性行为的欲望有了多久、求助的原因和决心,以及辅导者对这课题的深入认识和了解程度、对辅导方法的正确掌握和适当应用……等等,然而,整个辅导的过程却非一个必然大感痛苦或甚至持续痛苦的过程 (且不像戒烟、戒酒、戒毒般会有身体不适期),特别若是求助者能找到一些具爱心、具辅导这方面经验与专长,以及有过来人相助的志愿团体寻求帮助的话,那更会是一个可经历爱护、关怀、谅解与鼓励等等的过程。这些志愿团体有例如(香港)新造的人协会、(台湾)走出埃及辅导协会、(新加坡)抉择、(加拿大)新希望延展、(北美)出埃及全球联盟……等等。

是否不能改变

对於有人传讲「同性性欲望」乃是天生的,所以不能改变,及那些所谓「能改变」的见证只是当事人倘在反覆之中或变成「双性恋者」而矣,并举出一些未能成功的例子,对此论说,须留意的误导有四。

其一,「同性性欲望天生论」非但不是在科学上已被证立之说,及其可引伸的「肛交欲望天生论」更是大有疑点,而且,尽管退一步地以「天生论」来说,在医学上,亦非凡属先天性的都必为自然、健康、不宜与不能改变的。

其二,任何辅导的工作总会有一些未成功、有反覆或半途而废的例子,单举出一些未能成功的例子,仍不能抹杀成功的例子。

其三,此论说变相是否定有这方面过来人的真实存在,意思是那些所谓「过来人」全是作假或扯谎的,然而,这实在是个甚大的武断和非常严重的指控,不过,这同时也显出其背後或有一种因对过来人惧怕与敌视而作完全否定其存在的自我防卫心理,我们须予谅解。有关过来人的一些见证例子,可参《恢复真我──挣脱同性恋枷锁》、《你毋须是同性恋者》、「出埃及全球联盟」网页、National Association For Research and Therapy of Homosexual网页……等等,当中更有些过来人在後来委身於帮助同性恋求助者得改变的事工,及於现在仍公开地作见证。

其四,矫治「同性性倾向以至行为」的辅导,是帮助求助者重建健康心性之辅导,而不是以要使求助者对异性觉吸引为目标的引导。这辅导的过程会包括(却不止於)给求助者了解同性性行为可对身心与人伦健康的影响,从而巩固其想离开这欲念以至行为的动机及意志。若求助者倘未能妥善挣脱与同性作性行为的欲望,当然不算已是成功的辅导,但其实只要求助者不半途而废的话,成功走出困局绝非遥不可及的事。导师对个别求助者的耐心聆听与启导、求助者互助小组成员间的互相支持与鼓励、过来人的经验分享和安慰……等等,都是可帮助求助者走出困局的重要元素。

总语

在没有科学真凭实据,且有明显的反证,及有不少求助者与过来人的事实下,无论是向学子或社会大众宣讲或渗透「同性性倾向以至行为乃天生、自然、健康、不宜及不能改变」之说,都是不适当的。但近年来,却有团体藉「性倾向歧视教育」不断间接渗透这些论说,试图把这些论说重覆千遍百遍使人误以为是「真理」,事情令人担忧,亦令愈来愈多家长和教育工作者关注。

(作者为身心健益学社秘书)

http://www.christiantimes.org.hk,时代论坛时代讲场,14.4.2005)

Donationcall

舊回應36則


同志基督徒●以利達 / 2005-04-24 01:57:24.0

回:Kelvin弟兄


Kelvin弟兄:


我很高興與你有直接交流的機會,新造的人雖然只成立了兩年,但已有2個ex-gay小組,這在於機構發展來說,實在不錯呢。


本地基督徒人口如估了3-5%,則大約會有204,000 至340,000人。  貴教構可作的相信更多呢。


加油哦~~


我多去果到吹水~ 得閒就過去啦http://www.voy.com/174951/


 


平安


你的弟兄


以利達 上

English Question / 2005-04-23 23:32:00.0

To:虞瑋倩


 


很想知道你在文中“foolproof”一詞的中文解釋是甚麼呢?

佚名Anonymous / 2005-04-23 22:39:24.0

罪性


1. ”罪性不是一次過消滅的.人的記億,私欲仍是需要面對的.這在一般的基督教書籍也有交待..”


2. "當然﹐你籠統針對罪性可以這樣說。但問題是大家在使用統計﹑使用數據﹐就不應該用個人的經歷去作為理據。"


我個人理解聖經指所有私欲都具(1)這性質(我想這應是所有重生的基督徒的"個人經歷", .用統計去證明這觀念不困難,除非你要我的sample包括所有私欲.


若你的意思是:聖經不一定把同性間的情慾列入私欲的範圍,不能把私欲的一般性引伸到同性間的情慾.這點暫時未見過令我認同的論述.



而且聖經描寫同性間的情慾為逆性(新譯本:違反自然),要徹底改變它,可能比其他更困難.這點用統計法或可幫助判斷.

虞瑋倩 / 2005-04-23 21:12:21.0

To Kelvin Chung


2 founding members of Exodus (a organization for converting gays) reverted back to gay lifestyles.


Like it or not, there is not solid proof that any Christian method attempting to convert gay is foolproof.

虞瑋倩 / 2005-04-23 21:09:42.0

To 佚名Anonymous


當然﹐你籠統針對罪性可以這樣說。但問題是大家在使用統計﹑使用數據﹐就不應該用個人的經歷去作為理據。


 

Kelvin Chung / 2005-04-23 16:53:06.0

Out of homosexuality - a message seldom told by the media


Ex-gay journey is not a myth, nor a wishful thinking.  It is a real existence glorifying God!


In 1973, God called some normal gay people to leave the lifestlyes.  One of them is Frank Worthen. You may challenge they are bisexuals.  As I know Frank by person (He founded well-known Love-in-action Ministries). He has been actively involved in the gay circle in San Francisco for over 20 years.  He told me change is a journey that requires effort and persistence.  I met him last year in Philippines, at 75 years of age, he is still energetic and witty, he gives us very good insights on helping homosexuals to live by the Spirit.


A key to success - Submission. When you follow humbly the Holy Spirit and walk the Word of God, every one would repent his sins and be saved. 


In Hong Kong,  now we have New Creation ministries (www.newcreationhk.org) since 2003.  We accept referrals and now we have 2 ex-gays groups, 2 support groups (both male and female) and one care group for family members.  We have more works to be done in this 2005.


What impress us  is that God is working in His wonderful ways, more and more ex-gays and ex-lesbians show up to testify God's mercy and healing in their lives.


 

佚名Anonymous / 2005-04-23 15:40:26.0

to:虞瑋倩

罪性不是一次過消滅的.人的記億,私欲仍是需要面對的.這在一般的基督教書籍也有交待..

虞瑋倩 / 2005-04-23 14:19:07.0

Ken_S

不是所有自稱“已經從同性戀改變”的人是確實真的變成“異性戀”。有相當部份﹐在與配偶發生性行為時候﹐心裡面想到的不是異性的配偶﹐而是仍然有同性戀幻想﹐異性的配偶只是替代了同性而已。

佚名 / 2005-04-23 00:09:06.0

肛交對公共健康不會有不良影響?


今天在「不再各說各話,彼此直接對話」的性傾向歧視條例講座中,竟有人說肛交對公共健康會有不良影響是錯誤的,及不明白為何香港性文化學會犯這明顯的錯誤。大家怎看?

XOX / 2005-04-22 15:43:36.0

Cindy, you only got it half-right.


//Oh yes, you got it finally. Dr. Spitzer was the first one to suggest that homosexually be removed from the list of pyschiatric disorder and claimed that the behaviour cannot be changed. //


Yes. That is what I have been trying to tell you.


//And Dr. Spitzer changed his position now. That's the point.//


No, that is not the point. Dr. Spitzer didn't change his stand on removing homosexuality from the psycharic disorder list.


But he questioned if sexual orientation could be changed or not, which is different from his original stand.


Dr. Spitzer only stated that from his study that some gays could reduce their homosexual desire if they really tried to. But the study based on self-reporting, and we still don't know how many of these gays were originally bisexuals.


And majority of these gays didn't change their sexual orientation, but have reduced their sexual attraction to self sex.


As the subjects themselves are volunteers, these are gays who don't accept themselves as gays and try to change it, many of them are from anti-gay churches.


Last but not least, heterosexuals who have accepted their sexual orientation would not want to change their sexual orientation, the same go with many homosexuals and bisexuals.


Even if there is a slight chance that it could be changed, which is still highly doubtful according to Dr Spitzer' professional peers, why would anyone want to do that if they are happy with who they are.


 

Ken S. / 2005-04-22 15:35:24.0

同性戀過來人﹐請你定睛看上帝﹐不要被人迷惑﹗


在網絡世界一定要帶眼識人

cindy / 2005-04-22 11:11:42.0

Oh yes, XOX you got the point finally!


Oh yes, you got it finally. Dr. Spitzer was the first one to suggest that homosexually be removed from the list of pyschiatric disorder and claimed that the behaviour cannot be changed.


And Dr. Spitzer changed his position now.


That's the point.

XOX / 2005-04-22 10:39:28.0

Cindy, you got it wrong again. Spitzer in the first to remove homosexuality in psychatric disorders list


You still haven't responded on the other study. Or why one study is more important than the APA.


If you want to just repeated bias information or wrong statement, I really don't have the time to correct you.


 

cindy / 2005-04-21 12:09:50.0

XOX 事實是,首位倡導同性戀行為不可改變者己改變立場,you missed the point again!


事實是,Dr. Spitzer 是首位倡導同性戀行為不可改變者己改變立場的專家。他的意見改變了APA的立場。但Dr. Spitzer 繼續研究,得到最新的結果。根據這結果,推翻自己以前的立場。他的新立場是︰同性戀行為可以改變。


I am sorry, you missed the point again!

XOX / 2005-04-21 11:13:30.0

Excuse me Cindy, APA condemned Spitzer's study as unprofessional.


Of course, I would trust APA more than Spitzer. I think most people would be like me and try to have a more balanced view instead of insisting based on personal bias.


APA is not the only professional body that condemned this kind of treatment for gays.


American Medical Association


"Most of the emotional disturbance experienced by gay men and lesbians around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes but rather is due more to a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment. For this reason, aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians. Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the societal response to it."


Of course, you have the right to choose 'one study' that agreed with your personal prejudice than viewing how many other professionals responded to this study. But you could no longer claimed to be fair or just when it comes to discussion on this issue.


Maybe you could put down your personal bias and read some other materials than those misleading information from anti-gay organizations.


BTW, you haven't said anything about the other more details research by Michael Schroeder and Ariel Shidlo yet.


 


 

cindy / 2005-04-20 17:19:03.0

Excuse me, Mr. XOX, I am right.Dr. Spitzer changed his mind though APA does not like it.


Excuse me, XOX, I am right. Dr. Spitzer was the first to claim that homosexual behaviour cannot be changed and then in 2003, he published his new findings and changed his view.


APA does not like his new stand. However, APA's position, which is based on Dr. Spitzer's research orginally, cannot change the fact that Dr. Spitzer has changed his mind.

XOX / 2005-04-20 14:07:23.0

TO Cindy: Shidlo and Schroeder study on changing sexual orientation


Shidlo and Schroeder interviewed 182 men and 20 women who were "consumers of sexual orientation conversion interventions" to find out how they perceived its harmfulness and helpfulness.


Length of Treatment:

On average, the participants in this study had previously undergone 118 counselling sessions over an average period of 26 months.







Summary of Results:

Of the 202 participants, 176 perceived themselves as having "failed conversion therapy" and 26 as having been successful. The authors developed a model which attempts to show the pathways of conversion therapy both for those who fail and for those who succeed.


The authors discussed the various types of harm that the participants reported perceiving, including psychological harm (ie., depression, self-esteem issues, intrusive imagery), social and interpersonal harm (ie., relationships with family of origin, alienation, loss of social supports) and spiritual harm. The authors discussed the various types of helpfulness that the participants reported perceiving, including psychological benefits (ie., increased sense of hope, coping strategies), social benefits (ie., increased sense of belonging, social skill building) and spiritual benefits.


Well, for those who are interested in this topic, you have to ask should consider these questions.


1. Why do those who are willing to change have such low successfully rate?


2. For those who are successfully changes (self reported), how many of them are bisexuals to begin with?


3. For those who do not have any reason or desire to change their sexual orientation, why do anyone feel the need to make them change?


4. If you know that change-threapy would harm a person, would you still advocate the person to change so that he or she could fit into your 'preconception' that only heterosexual is acceptable?


 

XOX / 2005-04-20 13:33:35.0

to Cindy: excuse me, you are wrong again


Well, Dr Spitzer did published his study of 2001 in 2003, which resulted in strong reaction.


One is from APA, the lastest psychological profession orgainzation in the world.


American Psychiatric Assocation Official Disavowal of Spitzer's conclusions:  The American Psychiatric Association issued a formal disavowal of conclusions reached by Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist at Columbia University, who said in a paper submitted this week at the group's annual convention that "highly motivated" individuals could "successfully" change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Speaking for the organization, APA Medical Director Steven Mirin, M.D., issued a blunt statement. "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation," he said. Mirin made clear that presentations made at its Annual Meeting are not sanctioned by the organization nor do they necessarily reflect APA policy.


In February 2000, the American Psychiatric Association reissued guidelines on the potential harm caused by "reparative therapy," adding its condemnation of the practice.

Officially, the APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy, which is based either on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the patient should necessarily change his or her gay orientation.


Now, I would understand if you get your information from anti-gay organizations that motivated by hatred and prejudice and rely heavy on ignorant.


But think why the APA has such strong reaction. Wouldn't it because it is unethical for a psychologist to even think of harming others based on personal 'prejudice or belief'?


 

同志基督徒●以利達 / 2005-04-20 09:10:21.0

你好哦~


"同性戀的過來人"弟兄:


您好哦~


明白你以前的痛苦和掙扎,但仰望我們的主耶穌基督,我們就能平安。我猜你作了很重要的決定,還不錯吧?其實教內,對於有性傾向疑惑的同志朋友,都有不少機構進行輔導工作的,兄/姊也可以去明光社和性文化學會網站翻查一點資料,這或許對你有所幫助。


另外,也可以上新造的人網站,網站說有小組可以互相支持呢~


最後,弟兄/姊妹也可以到


http://www.voy.com/174951/ 版上,我多在那邊吹水的。


願你平安


你的弟兄


以利達 上 ^-^

同性戀過來人 / 2005-04-20 08:23:08.0

很有共鳴


對文中的內容很有共鳴,很想分享文中以下兩段,盼有同性戀後來者能看到。


 


“….因為同性身體有的,其實自己也有,渴望與同性作性行為的背後,會否涉及在某些心理下於性慾上不妥當的擺放,及這種性慾的擺放會否對身心與人倫的健康帶來不良影響,是值得關心的課題。


 


 人的性慾望以至行為是有一定的「人倫健康界線」,及這些界線並不是個人設法否定便會不存在,人若不理會這些界線,是會容易引來於身體、心靈與人倫健康上的問題。從上面之細析可見,「同性性慾望以至行為」是頗容易會帶來這三方面的負面影響,所以,實在難言「不宜改變」甚至「適宜鞏固」,相反地,這其實是適宜尋求可得矯治的幫助。