This shows either a misunderstanding of freedom of speech or a deliberate attempt to pretend that freedom of speech can exist in a vacuum that involves no responsibility.

So, in your version, it becomes entirely acceptable to yell 'fire!' in a crowded building.

There is no evidence that sexuality is something that is chosen, or that it is a disease and can be 'cured'. Experts in the field support this.

Thus to advertise such 'cures' would not only be in contravention of advertising standards etc, but more important in this sense, it could do damage to vulnerable people.

If it's harmful, I agree.

It most assuredly is [inot[/i about freedom of expression.

There are two issues. One is that it is not acceptable to refer to homosexuality as a disease any more than it would be acceptable to refer to black people as being 'disabled' solely by virtue of their skin colour. The other (and arguably the most important) is that, if you are going to advertise a 'therapy', it ought to be independently medically proven to work. And it ought to be for a condition for which therapy is required.

Because of people like you and Kirkstaller, there are gay people out there who are reluctant to admit their true sexuality, even to themselves (your son being a prime example of this). These people are vulnerable to scumbags like those in the article and could be subjected to great psychological harm in an attempt to make themselves more 'normal'. What homosexual people who are struggling with their sexual identity need is help and support to accept who they are and to be comfortable with the way they were born. They don't need telling that they have a disease and that they can simply 'pray the gay away'.

Well, I'd imagine that those taking advantage of such a 'service' won't be people who are secure and happy in their sexuality. The 'therapy' is likely to be accessed by those who have been brought up/brainwashed to believe that being gay is in some way immoral or abnormal, and who are struggling to reconcile this with the feelings they're experiencing. The vast majority are probably already in a great deal of emotional turmoil, and for a bunch of religious nuts to then set about 'curing' them of their homosexuality would be as good a definition of harmful as one could imagine.

If someone is LGB – or thinks they may be – and is so unhappy with this that they are likely to consider a 'cure', then it would seem fair to consider them as vulnerable and not in a particularly healthy mental/emotional state.

This sort of thing exploits that – and could do real harm.

I might set up a charity "curing" poor deluded souls that believe in the Sky Pixie, do you think I'd get a Lottery grant?

I like the idea.

But that takes us back to the extraordinary deference that is shown to people of all religious faiths. And I still don't get it, even having been one of that group for the bulk of my life.

Why is Jesus bothered with somebody's gardening in Yorkshire and he couldn't find the time to tell MT about medicine?

When my ex was in one of her "priest-baiting" moods, she visited a church only to be pounced upon by the resident god-recruiter in chief. After a 30 minute discussion of how good Jesus was she decided to let them know she was transsexual, only to be met with "Gemma, why on earth would you want to become a man?". She just grinned and walked out

You know when I said you had, possibly, a fair point?
I was very wrong, you didn't.

Freedom of speech is valuable and necessary, but quack therapies are wrong, whether they purport to de-gay people, cure cancer or reduce obesity.
It's not freedom of speech that's the issue with quack therapies, it's the fact that they are quack therapies.

The failure to see the bigger picture is yours.
You cannot see beyond grasping at straws in attempts to validate your prejudice.

What prejudice would that be?

Your prejudice against gay people, which you call morality.

Good way to kill spare time.

Quack therapy or not (I have made my feelings on the matter clear), is this issue [ireally [/iabout the quality of the therapy itself? For example, do you think Boris would have pulled homeopathy adverts, or silenced Chinese therapies claiming to get rid of warts?

The answer is obvious.

This was a clear political statement, made days before the London Mayoral Election. The advert had been passed by the relevant advertising standards authority, but Boris sought to use his discretionary veto to pull the ads and gain support amongst the left whose votes he needed to return him to political office.

Brilliant.