Yes, I would have that same tolerance for heterosexuals who want to be homosexual.
Well, this is a fair attitude.
No. But lack of a successful therapy doesn't mean that there isn't one. I have yet to see an objective study of cures for cancer that yielded the result "there is a cure X that does the job". Does that mean we should stop trying to find a cure? There are those with cancer who don't want cancer and would take a cure. There are those with physical aspects of themselves that they would rather not have and have plastic surgery preformed. There are those with mental states that they do not like and want changed. I see no reason why a person who's sexuality is not as they want it should be stigmatized for trying to change it. Neither do I see a reason why the person who tries to help them change it has done anything criminal.
There are clinical studies that actually show the progress and effectiveness in cancer treatment. Of course there is no guarantee for each and every individual.
However there has not been any such study for the "treatment" of sexual preference.
I don't. I'm sure the field of psychology could come up with a way to do it. However, I believe that there is a specific way a human being should attempt to live his/her life and I believe so based on my religious values. My religion also teaches that if one is naturally inclined to a certain action that goes against those religious values, a person can successfully change that natural inclination.
Hence, I believe that a religious organization could come up with an appropriate therapy. We demean the status of the common man's ability to act when we limit our use of the word "valid" to the work done by scientists.
I think you commit a grave mistake here.
If your religion tells you something about sexual preferences of humans and if that something is true then it should reflect itself in the scientific knowledge unless you think that God was not capable of creation that is empirically verifiable and relies on totally blind belief in some scripture that more than enough people doubt on not naturally unreasonable grounds.
In other words. Religious values do not count for someone like me as long as these religious values and teachings are not reflected in "neutral" observable nature.
But we have a far greater problem.
You say that science especially psychology might have a cure or find one. When you say that you should keep in mind that exactly those two declare homosexual preferences as perfectly normal. They are neither a desease nor an errorneous mental state nor a choice. If you include other fields of science (like biology with its information about other "nonconcious" species and their behaviour, then it should make you halt for a second and ponder the question if (at least) your understanding of the specific topic in your religion corresponds to reality as we can see it by non-subjective means.
As i said before I DO agree with you that IF someone WANTS to change his preference then he should be allowed to do so or to try to do so.
I do not agree that any religious organization, especially those that actively follow a dogma that some sexual preferences per default have to be a choice or wrong has any right to claim having an objective therapy, especially not if that was not verified by neutral organizations.
It is the belief of my religion that a person can change their natural proclivities through discipline and meditation. In other words, I believe a person can successfully change any of their natural desires.
I would disagree. I think he can actively supress them but in most cases not without consequences.
You might ask yourself the following question: "Am I able to love and feel sexual desire for men?"
What is the answer you honestly would give yourself. In my case for example i must clearly say "no, i am not able to do so".
