Boy Erased (4 Stars)

Most times when I walk out of the cinema I already know how I'm going to rate a film. I already know if I love it, hate it or it's somewhere in the middle. I've given "Boy Erased" a preliminary four star rating, but it's possible that I'll increase its rating next time I watch it. It's definitely a film that I need to watch again.

The film is the true story of an 18-year-old boy who was sent to Gay Conversion Therapy by his parents. This is a programme that is carried out by Christians in the USA on the assumption that homosexuality is an illness that can be cured. I'd heard about it in the past and considered it to be harmless nonsense. The first ten minutes put me right. I couldn't believe that the Gay Conversion centre, Love In Action, could really be so bad. If it hadn't been a true story I would have accused the film of exaggerating.

When Jared Eamons checked into the centre all his personal possessions had to be handed over. He was told that each day someone from the contacts list on his mobile phone would be rung at random to check who he was talking to. That alone would have made me turn round and walk out. But it got worse as the film progressed. In one scene a boy who is considered unrepentant has to kneel while the centre's staff and his family members, including his young sister, hit him over the head with their Bibles. All I can say is that anyone who uses a Bible as a weapon has never read what's written between the pages.

Although homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the Christian church that Jared belongs to – Baptists? – the emphasis is on its status as an illness which can be cured by a mixture of psychotherapy and Christian preaching. The centre's leader is convinced that homosexuality is the result of sins in the immediate family, such as drugs, alcohol, pornography and similar matters. He also insists that homosexuality is caused by hatred towards your father. As part of the therapy the young men have to sit and yell at their father (represented by an empty chair) to let their anger out. When Jared says he can't do this because he's never hated his father he's accused of lying.

Jared's father is the pastor in the church he goes to. He's not a bad man. In fact he's a very good man, not at all hypocritical, and he loves his son. He's just somewhat confused. When he finds out his son is gay he wants to help him overcome his illness. He means well. He wouldn't have hit his son with a Bible. He's not that bad.

When Jared enters the centre, one of the first things he hears is the leader saying, "You weren't born gay, that's a lie. It's a choice". I disagree with both of these statements.

In recent years it's become common to say that people are born gay because they have a homosexual gene. That's nonsense, from a purely evolutionary standpoint. Evolution is all about the survival of the fittest. The strong survive, the weak die. This happens through procreation. A homosexual gene, if it existed, would hinder procreation and only be passed on by a person acting against his genetic makeup or as a recessive gene. Any gene which makes procreation less likely is a weak gene, which might survive a few generations, but over the course of a thousand years it would die out.

The concept of a homosexual gene isn't the result of scientific studies. It was invented to make people accept homosexuality by saying, "Everyone has to accept homosexuals because they were born that way". I don't think the tolerance of one's fellow man needs such artificial props. The people who say that there's a homosexual gene don't realise that the existence of a weak gene would mean that homosexuals are inferior. I refuse to believe that homosexuals are in the least inferior to heterosexuals. They're in every way as valuable as everyone else.

It's also foolish to call homosexuality a choice. Nobody chooses what he likes and doesn't like, whether it's music or food or sexual partners. Instead of choice I would use the word preference. Choice implies a positive action, whereas preference is something passive. Where does a preference come from? It can come from anywhere, except I would say it's post-existence. It might come from childhood experiences, it might come from pre-natal experiences, or it might come purely at random. These preferences only become apparent to others when they're strong enough to be expressed, so by then it's too late to change them. Brainwashing a person with Gay Conversion Therapy might work, but even if it does force a person to think differently it will do a person more harm than good.

Preferring sex with people of one's own gender is a sexual preference like any other. For instance, I have a sexual preference that leans towards masochism. I don't know where this came from. It's not a choice. The earliest I can remember is when I was eleven years old, and I found myself sexually aroused by comics in which Supergirl was hitting men. This feeling has remained with me all my life. When I was in my late teens I thought something was wrong with me and made a conscious effort to suppress these feelings, but I couldn't. It wasn't until I finally spoke to someone about it when I was 21 that I realised my masochism was normal. I learnt to accept myself.

Homosexuality is normal. Suppressing homosexuality is wrong. Suppressing homosexuality will make you ill. If you choose to be heterosexual when your natural preference is to be homosexual you will never be happy.