PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Homosexuality isn't biological

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The common misconception about homosexuality is that it is somehow simply biological, making it completely normal and acceptable. Researchers, such as Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer, have tried to find a biological connection to homosexuality with no success. Many people like to reference these two researchers, saying that they have proven that homosexuality is genetic when there are many questions concerning their respective research.

Simon LeVay is the neurobiologist who tried to determine if there was any difference in a part of the hypothalamus of the brain between homosexual men and heterosexual men. He concluded from his research that the area he studied was about 2 to 3 times larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. There are many problems concerning LeVay's research. One issue is the size of the INAH3 (the area of study). The INAH3 makes up only about .0009 percent of the brain's mass. Since the INAH3 is so small in size, a 2 to 3 time increase in size is not a significant difference. Another issue is how scientist can't even agree on how to even measure the INAH3. The thing that makes the INAH3 nucleus hard to measure is that it is seen as a scattering of cells. Since it is difficult to assign a proper boundary to this nucleus, many feel that it should be measured by counting the actual number of cells, instead of measuring by its volume (the method LeVay used). To raise even more questions about his research, there were fallacies in how he obtained his sample group. Of the sixteen heterosexual men that were tested, only two of them, which were the ones that died of AIDS, denied any homosexual activity. For the other fourteen men there was no record available about their sexuality and they were assumed to be “mostly or all heterosexual on the basis of the numerical preponderance of heterosexual men in the population”. When LeVay made his classification of the group of homosexuals he included all men that have had sexual encounters with men and he did not take into account any possible encounters they might have had with women. This is evident in how he included a bisexual in the group of homosexuals. This classification implies that there is a unity of sexual behavior between bisexual men and men who only have sex with men that simply does not exist.

Dean Hamer is the molecular biologist who performed research for the "gay gene", Xq28. In his research he interviewed and took blood samples from 40 pairs of homosexual brothers to see if they shared the marker on the Xq28 segment on the X chromosome (the X chromosome is passed on by the mother). One problem with his research is how he did not use heterosexual men as a control in his research. If heterosexual brothers shared the same markers, then the whole idea of this particular marker being connected to homosexuality is completely nullified. Another issue with his research is that he only tested the possible alleles (alternate versions of a gene) of 15 of the 40 mothers. This means that it was unknown as to if the untested moms were homozygous (having 2 identical alleles for a trait) or not. The rest of the mothers were classified as homozygous for the marker by using the population frequency of the allele coinherited by the brothers. This in itself leaves plenty of room for error in the results. There have been other researchers who have tried to duplicate Hamer’s research with no luck. In April of 1999 George Rice and his team tried to duplicate Hamer’s findings by using 52 gay brothers in their research. They examined the same markers and their results did not match the results of Hamer. They concluded that their results did not support any X-linked gene for homosexuality

Another issue about this type of research is that it relies on common stereotypes of homosexuals. For example, most of the test for male homosexuality have relied heavily on the stereotype that male homosexuals are somehow “feminized”, making them more prone to homosexual behavior.

 People are not born homosexuals. The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is a choice, which is based from environmental and psychological factors. Just because a person has a strong desire for something, especially in the case of homosexuality, doesn’t make it biological. Seeing as how there is no proof that there is any biological cause to homosexuality, one has no choice but to rely on faith to believe that there is any sort of connection.  
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 3:39 PM on March 5, 2004 | IP
P-FLAG Supporter

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from LuckyGal at 3:39 PM on March 5, 2004 :

The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is a choice  




Wrong. You want to know why? It's simple, the main reason homosexuality is classified as not a choice is because of COMMON SENSE.  Homosexuality starts to develope in childhood around the time of puberty as does heterosexuality. When a child is growing up they don't simply say "should I love boys or girls, hmmm, I think I'll love boys." Did you ask yourself this question when you were growing up and then make a decision? Plus, if homosexuality was a choice, then are you saying that you could automatically turn into a homosexual right now by your choice? Even if you tried, I doubt you would have any sexual feelings for those of the opposite sex. There may not be any genetic proof of a "homosexual gene", but that doesn't prove that one can simply "choose" to be a homosexual. No one also chooses to be have a life to be ridiculed, discriminated and bashed either, otherwise they would have "changed" so easily. There was however once a study done in on the brains of dead transgendered people that showed some brain nerves or something like that that seemed to be similar to those of the opposite sex. While the study may not prove anything, it was an interesting discovery.

 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:54 PM on March 10, 2004 | IP
J47

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from P-FLAG Supporter at 12:54 PM on March 10, 2004 :

When a child is growing up they don't simply say "should I love boys or girls, hmmm, I think I'll love boys." Did you ask yourself this question when you were growing up and then make a decision? Plus, if homosexuality was a choice, then are you saying that you could automatically turn into a homosexual right now by your choice? Even if you tried, I doubt you would have any sexual feelings for those of the opposite sex.



Exactly P-FLAG. I getting tires of all these people who use religion to try to cover up scientific fact. When scientists use science that proves that gays are no more likely to molest children than straights, religious people attack it. When scientists use science to prove that evolution is how human beings came to be, religious people attack it. They just can't take the scientific truth and accept it but instead just like to spread myths in fear that the Bible may be full more of myths than scientific facts.




 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:08 PM on March 10, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In order for homosexuality to be truly involuntary it has to be rooted solely in biology. But without any biological root being found, homosexuality by default has to be a choice.

Homosexuality starts to develope in childhood around the time of puberty as does heterosexuality.


So, if homosexuality develops around the time of puberty that says that a person is not born gay and that they do have a choice in their sexual preference.

No one also chooses to be have a life to be ridiculed, discriminated and bashed either, otherwise they would have "changed" so easily.


This is an emotionally based strawman argument. This choice is not centered on choosing to be ridiculed and discriminated against. What they are choosing is how to direct their desires and if they want to live that kind of lifestyle or not.    

I getting tires of all these people who use religion to try to cover up scientific fact.


J47,

Religion was never once brought into this discussion. You are using religion as a strawman argument to distract from the scientific facts that were presented. If you want to discuss religious or moral issues related to this issue, please start another thread in the proper section.

 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 11:38 PM on March 10, 2004 | IP
Lost-ish

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree, LuckyGal, that biology is the key point in what makes homosexuality involuntary. But not having proven that it is biologically liked does not give it the defualt of being a choice.

"So, if homosexuality develops around the time of puberty that says that a person is not born gay and that they do have a choice in their sexual preference."

Just because it hasn't developed yet doesn't mean they're not born with it. It's like a preset switch that puberty flips.

And, umm, I feel kinda dumb, but what's a "strawman"?
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 11:50 PM on March 10, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But not having proven that it is biologically liked does not give it the defualt of being a choice.


The problem is that until it is proven that homosexuality is rooted purely in biology, one has no choice but to assume that it is without an involuntary biological root by default. Put more simply, one cannot assume something is true before providing evidence that it is true.

The whole basis behind science is to form an hypothesis and to then test it to see if it is correct or not. The hypothesis of homosexuality being biological has been tested, and up to this point has not been proven.

Within the current situation, the opposing viewpoint has to, by default, rely on personal beliefs rather than evidence to say that it is involuntary. But personal beliefs do not equal scientific fact.

But it is interesting that in this move for "gay rights," many pro-homosexual individuals and groups have basically ignored the absence of scientific evidence to show homosexuality is involuntary like race. They simply go ahead and equate it with race anyway. This is intellectually dishonest.

Just because it hasn't developed yet doesn't mean they're not born with it. It's like a preset switch that puberty flips.


The central issue here is not when homosexuality "appears" or is "realized." It is if homosexuality is biologically fixed from birth apart from issues of if one supposedly realizes it or not.

The way P-FLAG Supporter worded it, it sounded like homosexuality had its origin in childhood.

And, umm, I feel kinda dumb, but what's a "strawman"?


Simply put, a strawman argument is any statement that is used in a discussion to divert the conversation in an attempt to avoid the issues at hand.

 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 12:50 AM on March 11, 2004 | IP
J47

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from LuckyGal at 11:38 PM on March 10, 2004 :
In order for homosexuality to be truly involuntary it has to be rooted solely in biology. But without any biological root being found, homosexuality by default has to be a choice.

Homosexuality starts to develope in childhood around the time of puberty as does heterosexuality.


So, if homosexuality develops around the time of puberty that says that a person is not born gay and that they do have a choice in their sexual preference.

No one also chooses to be have a life to be ridiculed, discriminated and bashed either, otherwise they would have "changed" so easily.


This is an emotionally based strawman argument. This choice is not centered on choosing to be ridiculed and discriminated against. What they are choosing is how to direct their desires and if they want to live that kind of lifestyle or not.    

I getting tires of all these people who use religion to try to cover up scientific fact.


J47,

Religion was never once brought into this discussion. You are using religion as a strawman argument to distract from the scientific facts that were presented. If you want to discuss religious or moral issues related to this issue, please start another thread in the proper section.





I'm going to repost what P-FLAG said

"When a child is growing up they don't simply say "should I love boys or girls, hmmm, I think I'll love boys." Did you ask yourself this question when you were growing up and then make a decision? Plus, if homosexuality was a choice, then are you saying that you could automatically turn into a homosexual right now by your choice? Even if you tried, I doubt you would have any sexual feelings for those of the opposite sex."

This is the exact reason why the American Psychological Association agrees that homosexuality is NOT a choice.  If it is a choice, then you asked yourself wether to be straight or gay when you were growing up, did you?And that means you yourself could turn gay right now. But if you tried to turn gay right now, you wouldn't be able to have sexual interests in people in the opposite sex. Could you turn gay right now? And despite the "ex-gay" claims, some homosexuals have tried to get therapy but have been unsuccessful to change.  One "ex-gay" who now is a member of the Religious Right did admit in one interview despite his "therapy" he did have cravings for other men come back. I knew an online freind of mine (who is straight) who said that he had a gay friend who tried this "therapy" to "change" but was unsucessful. He also had another  gay friend of his who committed suicide, and gays who have commited suicide couldn't change. The American Psychological Association even claims that such "therapy" can eventually cause emotional damage latter on. Plus remember that P-FLAG mentioned about the European study finding brain tissue of dead transexauls looking similar to people of the opposite sex. Even surprisingly Dr. James Dobson of the Religious Right "pro-family" group Focus on the Family admitted in his book "Bringing up Boys" that he agrees that homosexality is not a choice. Untill you start understanding the emotional pain gays go through, then you shouln't be claiming that you are right and psychiatrists are wrong! People get rarities in life such as rare diseases, people get rare rare talents, people get things they don't want to  have, but the point is that you can't label everything that people are given as a "choice"!

And I hope you aren't offending any gay people, even gay youths, who might be looking on here with you clamining that they "chose" to be gay!

Exactly what Lost-ish said: But not having proven that it is biologically liked does not give it the defualt of being a choice.

 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 12:32 PM on March 12, 2004 | IP
Father of a gay son

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from J47 at 12:32 PM on March 12, 2004 :


I'm going to repost what P-FLAG said

"When a child is growing up they don't simply say "should I love boys or girls, hmmm, I think I'll love boys." Did you ask yourself this question when you were growing up and then make a decision? Plus, if homosexuality was a choice, then are you saying that you could automatically turn into a homosexual right now by your choice? Even if you tried, I doubt you would have any sexual feelings for those of the opposite sex."

This is the exact reason why the American Psychological Association agrees that homosexuality is NOT a choice.  If it is a choice, then you asked yourself wether to be straight or gay when you were growing up, did you?And that means you yourself could turn gay right now. But if you tried to turn gay right now, you wouldn't be able to have sexual interests in people in the opposite sex. Could you turn gay right now? And despite the "ex-gay" claims, some homosexuals have tried to get therapy but have been unsuccessful to change.  One "ex-gay" who now is a member of the Religious Right did admit in one interview despite his "therapy" he did have cravings for other men come back. I knew an online freind of mine (who is straight) who said that he had a gay friend who tried this "therapy" to "change" but was unsucessful. He also had another  gay friend of his who committed suicide, and gays who have commited suicide couldn't change. The American Psychological Association even claims that such "therapy" can eventually cause emotional damage latter on. Plus remember that P-FLAG mentioned about the European study finding brain tissue of dead transexauls looking similar to people of the opposite sex. Even surprisingly Dr. James Dobson of the Religious Right "pro-family" group Focus on the Family admitted in his book "Bringing up Boys" that he agrees that homosexality is not a choice. Untill you start understanding the emotional pain gays go through, then you shouln't be claiming that you are right and psychiatrists are wrong! People get rarities in life such as rare diseases, people get rare rare talents, people get things they don't want to  have, but the point is that you can't label everything that people are given as a "choice"!

And I hope you aren't offending any gay people, even gay youths, who might be looking on here with you clamining that they "chose" to be gay!

Exactly what Lost-ish said: But not having proven that it is biologically liked does not give it the defualt of being a choice.





I've been looking at this forum for a while now and have finally decided to register on here. J47, allow me to say that I applaud you 100% for your post. My son Danny, who is 19, happens to be gay and from the emotional feeling he goes through, he did not "choose" to be gay. I remeber a few year ago when he finally admitted he was gay I was in shock. I was upset at first, but eventullay I began to accept it because he is after all, still my son. Danny has broke down many times because he knows it is hard to be accepted in this world for who he is. Danny did not "choose" to be gay otherwise who wouldn't be going through this. All I see here is nothing but a bunch of ignorance from people who claim that gays "chose" to be gay just because no gay gene has been found. These kind of people are just ignorant and think they know better than even psychiatrists. My son didn't "choose" to be gay and you can't tell me he did! And if you can't accept the truth and stay in denial, then get the hell out of here! For every parent of a gay child, hug your child and tell them how much you love them and how much you care about them. My heart goes out to you J47 and P-FLAG to say thank you for standing up to ignorance. And for anyone who has lost a gay loved loved one, such as the parents of Matthew Shepard, my heart and condolences goes out to you for your loss.


(Edited by admin 3/26/2004 at 1:36 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 1:15 PM on March 12, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Father of a gay son,

With all due respect, all you are offering to this discussion is emotional rhetoric. You and your son’s personal beliefs and emotion does not serve as evidence that your son is involuntarily homosexual. This is because they are both subjective elements of a person that are changeable and variant. And to supplement offering personal beliefs and emotions as evidence your son is involuntary homosexual, you engage in an ad-hominem attack (calling me “ignorant” to discredit my posts). This only serves to portray your post in an anti-intellectual light. And as far as quoting J47 goes, anybody can quote another person’s words and the only thing this shows is that when you are quoting you are not thinking for yourself.

It is all too easy for a person who is involved in a highly emotional situation, such as yourself, to listen to your own emotion than to consider facts. Every parent wants to feel proud and happy about their children because they feel that their children are a reflection of themselves and part of their legacy. When a parent discovers that their child is homosexual they want to believe that their child had no choice in the matter. This is because they do not want to feel that they raised a “messed up” child.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 10:10 PM on March 13, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One "ex-gay" who now is a member of the Religious Right did admit in one interview despite his "therapy" he did have cravings for other men come back. I knew an online freind of mine (who is straight) who said that he had a gay friend who tried this "therapy" to "change" but was unsucessful. He also had another gay friend of his who committed suicide, and gays who have commited suicide couldn't change.


J47,

Can you prove that these examples are truly representative of the “ex-gay” community? People having difficulty in changing their sexual preference is not evidence that people can’t change. Also, the example of the “ex-gay” who occasionally has “cravings” for men does not mean he did not change. Just like any addiction (for example a sexual addiction), it takes time to overcome it and it is also natural to have relapses or cravings from time to time. The recurrence of these cravings, like in homosexual desires, does not mean that the cravings are biologically fixed.    

This is the exact reason why the American Psychological Association agrees that homosexuality is NOT a choice.


Even though the most commonly accepted view within the American Psychological Association is that homosexuality is “in-born” and that they cannot change, this view is not universal within the APA. Another accepted viewpoint in the APA is known as the contructionist perspective. According to this viewpoint sexual orientation is a socially constructed product of a person’s life experiences and therefore can be modified. So speaking of the APA as a singular entity that wholeheartedly backs the idea that homosexuality is involuntary is misleading. The truth is that even within the APA there is competing viewpoints.

There have been studies done that have tried reorientation therapy (for example ones done by Dr. Robert Spitzer) and have had success in changing the sexual orientation of homosexuals. If it is true that homosexuals can’t change their sexual preference, people like Dr. Spitzer should not have any success in their therapy treatment.

And I hope you aren't offending any gay people, even gay youths, who might be looking on here with you clamining that they "chose" to be gay!


The only basis for anyone to be offended with what I am saying is for homosexuality to already be taken as involuntary. But being offended at one questioning homosexuality as being involuntary before offering empirical proof that it is involuntary is backwards thinking.

(Edited by LuckyGal 3/14/2004 at 12:08 AM).
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 10:12 PM on March 13, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just found this board and after reading through these comments I have to put my position here.  I do not feel, after looking at all of the evidence, that being gay is a choice.  The argument that I hear most is, why on earth would anyone choose to be gay if all they will be getting in return is hatred?  No one thrives to be hated.  But, I do not feel that this is a reasonable argument on why someone does not choose to be gay.

Luckygal you have provided a lot of proof of why being gay is a choice.  Where is the proof that heterosexuality is not a choice?  Your argument is that the environment and psychology makes someone choose to be gay.  In this case, couldn’t it be argued that being heterosexual is choice as well?  Did you choose to be heterosexual or is it somehow implanted in your DNA that you are going to have sexual reactions to males.  Why do heterosexuals choose to have sex with the opposite partner? In our society that is the norm.  We are taught through society what sex is; between a man and a woman.  Using your argument, the environment and psychological factors caused you to be a heterosexual.

If I am homosexual, then I can choose to have sex with either a male or female.  That is where, and only where, your theory of choosing to have sex with the same gender (not being gay) comes into play.  I will more than likely not have much sexual feelings towards the female in this case.  Where did I choose to have sexual feelings?  I didn’t.  My only choice was to have sex with the female.  

On the other hand you can say that we are born heterosexual and throughout our development process we choose to have sexual feelings towards the same gender; that we implant in our emotions that we will only have feelings towards this gender.  Do we somehow turn off all feelings towards heterosexuals at the same time?  That is a major change to do psychologically.  If you are 9 yrs old and making this choice then you should already be in college as you have matured to make a decision far greater than anything you will ever have to make your entire life.  

Also you argue that someone who is gay can be converted back to heterosexual.  Where is the proof that they were a heterosexual to begin with?  Isn’t their move from homosexuality to heterosexuality a choice?

You could also argue that we are born with a penis and vagina for a reason.  What is that reason?  To procreate.  There is no other reason for those parts (and all of the parts that go with them) to exist. This can be seen in animals.  Homosexuality does exist in other mammals as well.  Some of these animals have brains much less capable of making such decisions.  They do not choose to homosexual, but they choose who they have sex with.  Animals have sex for the same reasons we humans do.  For creating new life and for play.  Many of these species only have sex with the opposite partners during mating seasons.  This is for the purpose of creating offspring, not for fun.  During the “offseason” these animals can be found to have sex with male partners.

In order to prove your theory that we are born heterosexual, you need to provide some solid evidence.  Good luck!  There is no solid proof on either side.  But there is proof that homosexuality has been around as long as heterosexuality has.  I guess people were making these choices far before they became an issue.



(Edited by ffaldo 3/17/2004 at 2:39 PM).
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 2:34 PM on March 17, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In this case, couldn’t it be argued that being heterosexual is choice as well? Did you choose to be heterosexual or is it somehow implanted in your DNA that you are going to have sexual reactions to males… Also you argue that someone who is gay can be converted back to heterosexual. Where is the proof that they were a heterosexual to begin with? Isn’t their move from homosexuality to heterosexuality a choice?


The mind is a very powerful thing. It can make a mental conviction have the same effect as a physical condition. Hypochondriacs often convince themselves that they are sick and then start feeling accordingly. Someone who is depressed or “gives up” can make their body weak and in some cases allow for death. Someone can even feel better through the usage of a placebo. There is also evidence that many food allergies are caused mentally. All of these examples go to show how people can make themselves believe that they do not have any control of certain aspects within him or herself, when in reality the condition that they are experiencing is mental. The same thing can be experienced with sexual desires.

Homosexuality does exist in other mammals as well.


Granted there are instances of homosexuality found in other animals, but how can one tell if the animals are smart enough to know what they are even doing. Take the example of a pair of homosexual penguins found at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan. The two were so desperate to incubate an egg together that they even placed a rock in their nest and sat on it, in an attempt to incubate it. Their attempt in incubating the rock demonstrates how they do not know what it is that they are doing.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 01:09 AM on March 18, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While some can force themselves to feel a certain way, they have to have conviction to feel that way, as you stated.  It is not an instantaneous choice.  Ask any of the millions of gays how long they forced themselves to completely disregard feelings towards the opposite sex AND have sexual feelings for the same sex.  There will be a small majority, very small, who may have chosen this route for their lifestyle, but there is a vast majority who have not chosen.  If being gay is choice, or a mental conviction, why can't the majority of gays remember making this life changing choice?  

Back to the choosing to convert to heterosexuality.  Why is the process so lengthy?  It takes an extreme amount of conviction to convert to another sexual-orientation.  If this same mentality is required to become gay, as you have argued, wouldn't at least someone remember doing this?

Take for example a girl who grows up in a rural area where the term fag is used to close the end of every sentence. She lives with her Catholic parents.  She realizes at a very early age that she is gay.  Why would she realize that she was gay?  Shouldn't she already know because she chose to be gay in the first place?  Her environment provided everything for her to lead the normal heterosexual life.  I'm sure you will argue that it was in defiance of her environment.

There still is no evidence to prove either side.  Heterosexuals could choose to be attracted to the opposite sex in the same way a homosexual could choose to be with the same sex.  

This may support both of our cases:

In many religions a priest takes a vow of abstinence.  As these years and years go by they lose their sexual desires and drives.  While they did choose not to have sex, naturally their mentalities changed over time.  

I am not arguing that we are born gay.  What I am arguing is that is a natural process not by a choice by the individual.  It is not necessarily affected by our environment, but our body's own natural responses.  I haven't found any information regarding this theory yet, so I will leave it at that.  

As for the mammal story, I was just showing that they do not choose to perform homosexual behavior.  You have made this clear by showing they don't have the mentality to make the choice.  

 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 04:19 AM on March 18, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is not an instantaneous choice.


The problem here is that since sexuality is not an instantaneous choice, people will say that it is not a choice at all. Sexual preference is a choice that is developed over time through one’s experiences and feelings.

Why is the process so lengthy? It takes an extreme amount of conviction to convert to another sexual-orientation.


It is easier to form one mental conviction than it is to change that conviction to something different. That is why reorientation therapy takes time and effort in order to be successful.  

Her environment provided everything for her to lead the normal heterosexual life.


One thought that I have had about a possible cause for homosexuality outside of abusive or broken homes is this: While the child is growing up they feel much more comfortable around their same sex than they do with opposite sex. Over time when that child is growing up they turn their “comfort zone” into attraction. This could explain how they formed their mental conviction over time and believe that they had no choice in the matter.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 08:30 AM on March 19, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sexual preference is a choice that is developed over time through one’s experiences and feelings.


Is that heterosexual or homosexual?  Are you saying that it can only be one sexual preference, but not the other.  I have one question for you, why are you a heterosexual?  Did you choose to be that way?  And if so, why would it be wrong to convert you to homosexuality in the same way you feel we should?

I do think that it is natural to be a heterosexual, but you are not born that way.  Your sexual preference is developed over time throughout your experiences, as you have said.  If you're five yrs old, you do not have much sexual feeling towards any sex.  What you do have is the experiences from the environment around you.

Under all of the arguments that I have heard and read here, you are born heterosexual.  I don't feel that you are born with your sexual preference. Your body develops hormones and other sexual drives during the devlopment period of any human.  During this period of your life is where you devlop into a sexual human.  Depending on the environment around you, you will either have these sexual drives geared towards the opposite sex or the same sex.  Normally these would develop towards an attraction towards the opposite sex, but in some cases these devlop into attractions towards the same sex.  I don't feel there was a choice in which environment caused this.  It is the way it happened.

There are three areas that could be the reason for why people are gay:  

1) You are genetically homosexual
2) You naturally devlop into a homosexual
3) You choose to be a homosexual

Devloping into a homosexual and choosing to be a homosexual are not one in the same.  They are two completely different factors for being gay.  You continue to mix the two together, when in fact they are not the same thing.

Simply, what I am trying to argue is that your sexual orientation is not ever a choice for any individual.  Yes there are cases of converting homosexuals to heterosexuals.  The success rate is not at all great and they use very cruel and dangerous ways of conducting this therapy.  Anyone with a strong enough will to go through with this therapy will not be converted but programmed to think a certain way.  In no way will all of their memories go away of being a homosexual, they will still have these feelings making them bisexual not either or.  Also reorientation therapy takes time because you are not changing a mental conviction into something different, but creating a new mental conviction.  They do not try to change any thoughts that you had, but instead provide thoughts that you "should" be having through their means.

Also, remember that homosexuality and being gay are different, in a way.  Homosexuality is the sexual attraction that you have towards another sex.  Being gay is acting upon those desires, those are choices.

(Edited by ffaldo 3/20/2004 at 02:55 AM).

(Edited by ffaldo 3/20/2004 at 02:58 AM).
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 02:50 AM on March 20, 2004 | IP
Father of a gay son

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from LuckyGal at 10:10 PM on March 13, 2004 :
Father of a gay son,

With all due respect, all you are offering to this discussion is emotional rhetoric. You and your son’s personal beliefs and emotion does not serve as evidence that your son is involuntarily homosexual. This is because they are both subjective elements of a person that are changeable and variant. And to supplement offering personal beliefs and emotions as evidence your son is involuntary homosexual, you engage in an ad-hominem attack (calling me “ignorant” to discredit my posts). This only serves to portray your post in an anti-intellectual light. And as far as quoting J47 goes, anybody can quote another person’s words and the only thing this shows is that when you are quoting you are not thinking for yourself.

It is all too easy for a person who is involved in a highly emotional situation, such as yourself, to listen to your own emotion than to consider facts. Every parent wants to feel proud and happy about their children because they feel that their children are a reflection of themselves and part of their legacy. When a parent discovers that their child is homosexual they want to believe that their child had no choice in the matter. This is because they do not want to feel that they raised a “messed up” child.



Honey,

First of all the only reason I haven't been around lately is because I took my son Danny and the rest of my family on vacation on Danny's spring break. "They do not want to feel that they raised a “messed up” child", exactly what are you trying to say here, that my wife and I might have "messed up" Danny? How many gay people have you been around? Do you even understand the feelings a gay person has? How old are you exactly? The only "choice" that a gay person makes is either to live an openly gay life or to stay in the closet and pretend to be someone else, you however are implying that Danny "chose" to let homosexuality get inside of him, which he did not! Danny wishes he could have been like any other boy growing up having a girlfriend, unfortunately that didn't happen. I can't believe you have the nerve to come back here and say that I might have "messed up" Danny. I credit J47 because he made good points, and P-FLAG and ffaldo have posted questions which show you can't answer because you keep avoiding them. You are no psychiatrist, that's for sure, so you can't speak for the majority of the enitire American Psychological Association. Your beliefs basically come from propoganda of the far right-wing Religous Right because it is they who frequently claim that homosexuality is a choice. Just as J47 said, religion trying to cover-up science with myths. I better not see you come on here and insult me and my family again.









 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 12:41 PM on March 22, 2004 | IP
CommentMan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are no psychiatrist, that's for sure, so you can't speak for the majority of the enitire American Psychological Association.


Niether are you.

(Edited by CommentMan 3/23/2004 at 01:58 AM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 01:42 AM on March 23, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He never said he was.  Luckygal has consistently used psychological views for her argument, but seems to have relied on data from the bible-toting naturalist sites that we have seen over and over again.
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 2:06 PM on March 23, 2004 | IP
CommentMan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He never said he was.


Great , then we agree.

so you can't speak for the majority of the enitire American Psychological Association


Neither can he. Catching my drift?

but seems to have relied on data from the bible-toting naturalist sites


ffaldo, shame on you. Are you bringing religion into this?

(Edited by CommentMan 3/23/2004 at 2:59 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 2:18 PM on March 23, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Neither can he. Catching my drift?
 

I know what you were saying.  And I agree.  He never said anything about the ASA, but he offered his own personal experiences.  Being gay and knowing your feelings is far more powerful than using generic data, which is all that has been offered.

ffaldo, shame on you. Are you bringing religion into this?


The data for most of these arguments comes from research of religous groups.  I'm not the one who brought it in.
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 3:28 PM on March 23, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Father of a gay son,

They do not want to feel that they raised a “messed up” child", exactly what are you trying to say here, that my wife and I might have "messed up" Danny?


I was not implying that you and your wife “messed up” Danny. What I was saying is that parents want to feel a sense of pride with their children because they believe that their children are a reflection of themselves. As far as sexuality is concerned, every parent wants their children when they grow up to get married and have children in order to continue their legacy. When a parent finds out that their child is homosexual, the first reaction is usually to wonder what they did wrong. Once the initial “shock” has worn off the parents then convince themselves that their child had no choice in the matter, in order to help cope with the news.

How many gay people have you been around? Do you even understand the feelings a gay person has? How old are you exactly?


I have been around many gays and know what a lot of them go through when they “come out of the closet”. One friend that I had I knew him throughout middle school and we were best friends throughout high school. I was there for him when he came out to his parents, with his step dad being a homophobe. I was also there for him when he had his STD scare because of a sexual encounter he had with a guy who knowingly had the STD and didn’t tell him until afterwards. I was friends with him until his step dad made him move out of state with other family members because he was afraid that he would turn his younger brother gay. Though this friendship I also made friends with many of his gay and lesbian friends, and some that were even unsure of their sexuality. So, I do know what a lot of gays go through and how some of their parents react towards them.

By the way, what does age have to do with anything? Age does not equal knowledge, no matter how much you want it to.

You are no psychiatrist, that's for sure, so you can't speak for the majority of the enitire American Psychological Association.


Me being or not being a psychiatrist is not the issue here. It does not lessen the fact that the APA is not in total agreement about homosexuality. It is intellectually dishonest to consider the APA as a singular entity that wholeheartedly backs the idea that homosexuality is involuntary. Here are some quotes/positions of a few influential members of the APA.

Dr. Robert Perloff

Dr. Perloff was the president of the American Psychological Association in 1985.

"The APA is too GD politically correct...and too GD obeisant to special interests!"

Dr. Perloff has even condemned the APA's one-sided political activism. As for reorientation therapy for homosexuals, he said: "It is considered unethical...That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research."

Dr. Robert Spitzer

Dr. Spitzer is known as the “architect of the 1973 diagnostic manual”, which normalized homosexuality. Since then he has performed a study on reorientation therapy with results.

"I'm convinced from people I have interviewed...many of them...have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual. I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained."

One comment that he has made about exclusive homosexuality was, "I think, implicitly, there is something not working."

Dr. Raymond Fowler

Dr. Fowler is the CEO of the APA. His position on reorientation therapy is that those who wish to explore developing heterosexual feelings or behavior have a right to do so as part of every client's right to self-determination.

Dr. Brent Scharman

Dr. Scharman is a former president of the Utah Psychological Association. He says that all homosexual individuals should have the right to pursue change. He also believes that it is the client who should determine the direction of the treatment.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton

Dr. Throckmorton is a former president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association. He has performed research on reorientation therapy with good results. He states that therapy can be conducted in an ethical manner and that it should be available for those who want it.

Dr. Martin Seligman

Dr. Seligman was the president of the American Psychological Association in 1998. His position on the APA’s statement on discouraging reparative (reorientation) therapy was that he felt that the media misunderstood the intent of the statement. He also believes that a client has the right to request the type of therapy that they want.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 09:55 AM on March 24, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ffaldo,

Is that heterosexual or homosexual? Are you saying that it can only be one sexual preference, but not the other.


Both. In order for any behavior or preference to be truly involuntary it must be rooted solely in the biological. Even those who believe that there is a biological element to behavior believe that the environment plays a factor as well. This shows how behavior/preference is not involuntary, thus able to change. Also, if human behavior/preference were involuntary, we would be no better than robots running around, following the programming of our genetics.  


The data for most of these arguments comes from research of religous groups. I'm not the one who brought it in.


So are you saying that it is only people of religious faith that believe that sexuality is a choice and that homosexuals can change? What about groups such as NARTH, they are not religious based.

You also keep harping on homosexuals not really changing after the treatment they receive. I think you would benefit from taking a look at this link.

http://www.narth.com/docs/photos.html

If these people did not believe that they were changed, why were they picketing the APA convention?
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 10:03 AM on March 24, 2004 | IP
CommentMan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

exactly what are you trying to say here, that my wife and I might have "messed up" Danny?


This sounds like insecurity if you ask me.

Being gay and knowing your feelings is far more powerful than using generic data


So what about a former homosexual that strongly feels that homosexuality is a choice?
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 11:09 AM on March 24, 2004 | IP
Father of a gay son

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from LuckyGal at 09:55 AM on March 24, 2004 :
Father of a gay son,

They do not want to feel that they raised a “messed up” child", exactly what are you trying to say here, that my wife and I might have "messed up" Danny?


I was not implying that you and your wife “messed up” Danny. What I was saying is that parents want to feel a sense of pride with their children because they believe that their children are a reflection of themselves. As far as sexuality is concerned, every parent wants their children when they grow up to get married and have children in order to continue their legacy. When a parent finds out that their child is homosexual, the first reaction is usually to wonder what they did wrong. Once the initial “shock” has worn off the parents then convince themselves that their child had no choice in the matter, in order to help cope with the news.

How many gay people have you been around? Do you even understand the feelings a gay person has? How old are you exactly?


I have been around many gays and know what a lot of them go through when they “come out of the closet”. One friend that I had I knew him throughout middle school and we were best friends throughout high school. I was there for him when he came out to his parents, with his step dad being a homophobe. I was also there for him when he had his STD scare because of a sexual encounter he had with a guy who knowingly had the STD and didn’t tell him until afterwards. I was friends with him until his step dad made him move out of state with other family members because he was afraid that he would turn his younger brother gay. Though this friendship I also made friends with many of his gay and lesbian friends, and some that were even unsure of their sexuality. So, I do know what a lot of gays go through and how some of their parents react towards them.

By the way, what does age have to do with anything? Age does not equal knowledge, no matter how much you want it to.

You are no psychiatrist, that's for sure, so you can't speak for the majority of the enitire American Psychological Association.


Me being or not being a psychiatrist is not the issue here. It does not lessen the fact that the APA is not in total agreement about homosexuality. It is intellectually dishonest to consider the APA as a singular entity that wholeheartedly backs the idea that homosexuality is involuntary. Here are some quotes/positions of a few influential members of the APA.

Dr. Robert Perloff

Dr. Perloff was the president of the American Psychological Association in 1985.

"The APA is too GD politically correct...and too GD obeisant to special interests!"

Dr. Perloff has even condemned the APA's one-sided political activism. As for reorientation therapy for homosexuals, he said: "It is considered unethical...That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research."

Dr. Robert Spitzer

Dr. Spitzer is known as the “architect of the 1973 diagnostic manual”, which normalized homosexuality. Since then he has performed a study on reorientation therapy with results.

"I'm convinced from people I have interviewed...many of them...have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual. I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained."

One comment that he has made about exclusive homosexuality was, "I think, implicitly, there is something not working."

Dr. Raymond Fowler

Dr. Fowler is the CEO of the APA. His position on reorientation therapy is that those who wish to explore developing heterosexual feelings or behavior have a right to do so as part of every client's right to self-determination.

Dr. Brent Scharman

Dr. Scharman is a former president of the Utah Psychological Association. He says that all homosexual individuals should have the right to pursue change. He also believes that it is the client who should determine the direction of the treatment.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton

Dr. Throckmorton is a former president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association. He has performed research on reorientation therapy with good results. He states that therapy can be conducted in an ethical manner and that it should be available for those who want it.

Dr. Martin Seligman

Dr. Seligman was the president of the American Psychological Association in 1998. His position on the APA’s statement on discouraging reparative (reorientation) therapy was that he felt that the media misunderstood the intent of the statement. He also believes that a client has the right to request the type of therapy that they want.



Luckygal,

Unfortuantely you're being fooled by the right-wing propoganda. It's simple, the Religious Right does not like the truth to be brought to light about anything. The truth is that these people will do whatever it takes, including lying, creating false research, scapegaoting, distorting all because these "radicals" as they are called believe God gives them permission to do so in order to "Christianize the world", to "destroy all evil" and to "combat Satan".  It's the reason why scientists don't want anyone the follow the beliefs of the Religous Right because you end up just believing the myths. Why is this so? It's simple, they are many former radicals who have left the Religious Right who are now exposing the truth behind the political agenda of the Religous Right. Are you familiar with Anita Bryant? Bryant was a singer who appeared in orange juice commercials in the late 70's and started a campaign called "Save Our Children From Homosexuals", which started the whole Religious Right campaign agaist gay rights. Bryant did pretty much what was is done today: say that gays are child molesters, that they choose to be gay, that gays don't deserve anti-discrimination protection to be hired as teachers. Of course, Bryant eventually went on a downfall when her campaign caued negative consequences such as the murder of a gay gardener named Robert Hillsborough. At the time of Hillsborough's murder, his mother Helen Hillsborough said one of the most memorable lines in the history of the gay rights struggle: "My Son's Blood is on her hands". Then came the argument of "curing" homosexuality and guess what, you know what religious fanatics tried to do? Shock gay men's testicles while they view photos of naked men. Did it work? No. It only made the patients emotionally disturbed. Now I submit to you the truth behind the Religious Right's dark secrets:

The Facts About "Ex-Gays"

About 30 years ago, the religious right launched a campaign to convince the public that gay people could be "cured" by science and magically become heterosexual.  Their thinking was that if they could prove that gay people can change, then there would be no reason to have laws protecting the civil rights of gay people.  

The problem?  The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all say that this talk of science curing "ex-gays" is all bunk.  

What's really going on here is that the folks preaching the ex-gay gospel say they're motivated by science, but they're really motivated because they simply don't like gay people.   They're religious fanatics who think all gays are going to hell, or they're political activists who think all gays are pedophiles who don't deserve a fair shake at the American dream.  Either way, they're simply using false science to justify their prejudice.

In America, the "ex-gay" proponents have every right to hate gay people.  But they don't have the right to claim they're speaking in the name of science when they're simply trying to force other Americans to live under their own "religiously correct" view of the world.

THEIR SCIENCE IS BOGUS

1. The only study the ex-gay proponents use to back their argument was taken out of context.

Anti-gay activists can cite only one study (by Dr. Robert Spitzer) to support their contention that gays cans become straight.  The problem is that the author of that study has come out and said that the ex-gay proponents misinterpreted his work:

"I anticipated some misuse of the study results but I did not anticipate that some of the media would say such ridiculous things as that the study raised the issue of homosexuality and choice.  Of course no one chooses to be homosexual and no one chooses to be heterosexual.  I did anticipate, and in my presentation warn, that it would be a mistake to interpret the study as implying that any highly motivated homosexual could change if they really were motivated to do so.  I suspect that the vast majority of gay people - even if they wanted to - would be unable to make the substantial changes in sexual attraction and fantasy and enjoyment of heterosexual functioning that many of my subjects reported.  I also warned against the study results being used to justify pressuring gay people to enter therapy when they had no interest in doing so and I have already heard of many incidents where that has happened.  That is what troubles me the most about this controversy." - Dr. Robert Spitzer, May 16, 2001

2. The ex-gay proponents think being gay is a "pathology" and a "disorder" when all the leading medical associations say this simply isn't the case (see extensive quotes at the bottom of this page).

"[the] homosexual inclination is developmentally disordered and more highly associated with pathology." - NARTH, the lead ex-gay "science" organization.  http://www.narth.com/docs/catholicbishops.html

3. All the ex-gay "poster children" have failed

- John Paulk, the current ex-gay leader who was featured on the cover of Newsweek, was subsequently caught in a gay bar in Washington, DC at 11PM on a weeknight.  Paulk first lied about why he was there, then later admitted that this wasn't his first visit to a gay bar.

- Wade Richards, the former ex-gay teen leader, last year came out and said that he was not "cured" of his homosexuality and that the ex-gay movement is a bunch of bunk.

- The two men who founded the ex-gay movement in the early 1970s subsequently quit the movement, and married each other.

4. Speaking of children, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the scientific leader of the ex-gay proponents, has reportedly treated children as young as 3 years of age.  And this, we're to believe, is science?

NEWSWEEK, August 17, 1998
Can Gays Convert?
By John Leland and Mark Miller

"Nicolosi's patients, most controversially, can be as young as 3 years old. Like Exodus, he trumpets his success rates, but has done no long-term follow-up study. 'I don't have time,' he says."

5. This isn't about science, it's about anti-gay politics

The "ex-gays" are anti-gay political activists hiding behind the shroud of science.  And while they have the right to push their own anti-gay political agenda, it would certainly be more honest of them to come out and admit what they're really up to.

For example, their web site contains action kits for organizing high school students against gay rights, papers supporting the ban on gay scouts, fact sheets opposing gay marriage and gay adoption, reference information about why private businesses should not provide domestic partner benefits to their gay employees, why gay sex is unhealthy and why companies shouldn't have non-discrimination policies protecting gays.  For example, check out the following political materials found on the Web site of the lead "ex-gay" organization that purports to be about science and not politics.

tolerance of gays in schools: activists guide: "this handbook is filled with useful suggestions for all parents on how to limit the scope of homosexual activism in public education, while restoring a family-friendly climate for schoolchildren."
http://www.narth.com/docs/takeback.html

gay adoption
http://www.narth.com/docs/endorse.html

gay marriage
http://www.narth.com/docs/marco.html

gay parenting
http://www.narth.com/docs/lernernagai.html

gays and pedophilia
http://www.narth.com/docs/moreonped.html

gay civil rights
http://www.narth.com/docs/dilemma.html

gays and the Boy Scouts
http://www.narth.com/docs/teensama.html

gays and workplace discrimination
http://www.narth.com/docs/employers.html

6. When you read Dr. Nicolosi's quotes (the president of the lead "ex-gay" scientific organization), it's clear that he is hardly an objective unbiased scientist.

Dr. Nicolosi made these statements at the "Love Won Out" conference in Decatur, Georgia on October 13, 2001.  (I have the entire conference on tape - these quotes are verbatim):

"Homosexual men are twice as more likely to sexually molest than the heterosexual man. And then let’s think about it for a moment, let’s look at this heterosexual man who sexually molests a homosexual boy. How do you define homosexual or heterosexual? Is he a homosexual or is he heterosexual. Well he might be married, but so what don’t gays themselves say “we are everywhere.”? Is he homosexual or is he heterosexual? One of the best ways to define a person’s identity is by his behavior and let me get this straight, you’re having sex with a boy, hmmm, two penises, now is that homosexual or heterosexual, this is how absurd it becomes. I said the word penis, they’ll have to edit that out."

"There is no such thing as a homosexual. Homosexual is a description of a condition, it’s not a description of the person. We are all heterosexual, some heterosexuals have a homosexual problem."

"A homosexual is a person who because of certain events in his past has lost touch with his authentic heterosexual nature. It’s based upon a sense of inferiority about one’s sense of gender."

"If there is an older brother, it’s a fear-hostile relationship with the older brother, I have never seen an exception to that. I have never seen a man with a homosexual problem speak with admiration and pride and love of his older brother."

"The gay identify offers breaking out of this good little boy mode, and that’s why being gay is being bad, this idea of the sexual outlaw, there’s something exciting about that. They become bad boys. If you ever take a look at a gay bar, it’s wild, it’s outrageous, it’s like big boys being bad little boys."

"We see exhibitionism in adulthood with gays."

"So much of the gay agenda is selling the idea that two men or two women are capable of maintaining the kind of life the kind of relationship that is equivalent to heterosexuality. Not true."

7. To illustrate  just how wacky the "science" is that's backing the ex-gay proponents, these are a few of the things that they say causes people to turn out gay:

Masturbation

Pornography

Spousal abuse in the home

Effects of the media/culture

Parental adultery

Moral relativism

Seduction by peers

Nearsightedness

Hearing loss

Chemical imbalances

Parents parading nude around the house

Poor hand-eye coordination

Generational curse

Intrauterine trauma - "If the mother was experiencing difficulty in her relationships with her husband while carrying the child or if she felt rejected, unloved, or unwanted by him or she experienced any other painful feelings during pregnancy."

8.  And these are a few of the ways the ex-gay experts "cure" gay people and make them heterosexual:

Men should play sports

Men practice going fishing, women practice putting on make-up

Men are taught to sit the right way, no crossed legs

Men are taught not to stand with their hand on their hip

Take away a man's Calvin Klein clothes and Barbra Streisand records

Men should avoid extreme sarcastic behavior

Men should wear short business-like haircuts

Show a gay man photos of nude men while placing rotted hamburger meat under his nose - he will then associated repulsion with same-sex attraction

The laying of hands on a gay man in front of the assembled church congregation

Reading a specific prayer over your gay child to list his "generational curse"

Forcibly abduct gay teens in their sleep, handcuff them, and send them to military boot camps where they are forced to march 20 miles a day with weights on their backs (this is a true, and horrible, story).

9. Finally, this is what the real scientific experts say, dispelling the myth that science can "cure" a gay person and make them heterosexual:

AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION

· "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed ... the APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation.

· "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders (1989).

· "Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so."

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

· "Even though homosexual orientation is not a mental illness and there is no scientific reason to attempt conversion of lesbians or gays to heterosexual orientation, some individuals may seek to change their sexual orientation or that of another individual (for example, parents seeking therapy for their child). Some therapists who undertake this kind of therapy report that they have changed their clients' sexual orientation (from homosexual to heterosexual) in treatment. Close scrutiny of their reports indicates several factors that cast doubt: Many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective on sexual orientation, rather than from mental health researchers; the treatments and their outcomes are poorly documented; and the length of time that clients are followed up on after treatment is too short.

· "In 1990, the American Psychological Association stated that scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works and that it can do more harm than good. Changing one's sexual orientation is not simply a matter of changing one's sexual behavior. It would require altering one's emotional, romantic and sexual feelings and restructuring one's self-concept and social identity.

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."

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

· "The psychosocial problems of gay and lesbian adolescents are primarily the result of societal stigma, hostility, hatred and isolation. The gravity of these stresses is underscored by current data that document that gay youths account for up to 30 percent of all completed adolescent suicides. Approximately 30 percent of a surveyed group of gay and bisexual males have attempted suicide at least once. Adolescents struggling with issues of sexual preference should be reassured that they will gradually form their own identity and that there is no need for premature labeling of one's sexual orientation."





 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 12:18 PM on March 24, 2004 | IP
Valerie Martinez

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

After reading both sides of this arguement, I finally can see who has it right. Frist of all, I myself am a Chrisian. I also have known gay people. But after reading both sides of this, I have to say that Father of gay son and the others who say that homosexuality is not a choice have the argument won. It's true because no one else other than religious right groups claim that homosexuality is a choice. It's not right to let someone's religious beliefs be the determining factor as "scientific proof". True Christinas would never claim that gays are child molesters either, that it not teaching the love of God. We as true Christians must tell others that lying is not the way of God. It's also not right to be claiming that gays chose their life because I myself never chose to be straight, it just came natural. P-FLAG had the best questions, yet no one who claims that homosexuality is a choice can answer his questions, which shows more of who is right and who is wrong. The truth is we can't be labeling everything we don't know to well of as a choice. There are people who develope epileptic seizeres, but we can't say that they chose to be epileptic. We can't say that someone's sexual orientation is not the same as race because you cannot change someone race because others can say that if Michael Jackson can change his skin color anyone else can.

I'm sorry, but anyone who reads the arguments on here can realize that the side that says homosexuality is a choice is not providing enough to make others believe so when the information provided comes from religious right grounds instead of actual scientific grounds.

That's just the truth people, accept it and move on.
 


Posts: 36 | Posted: 2:14 PM on March 24, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Father of a gay son,

NARTH is not a member of the Religious Right. They are simply a group that believes that homosexuals can change and tries to help them do so. Also, the people I quoted are not even members of NARTH, they are members of the APA with some of them even being former presidents of the APA. You seem to have failed to realize this fact. Not everyone who believes that homosexuality is voluntary and that homosexuals can change are members of the Religious Right, nor are they even religious to begin with. You also claim that some religious groups will lie/deceive people in order to get people to believe in what they are saying. Don’t liberals do that as well? Liberal, gay right activists want people to believe that gays can’t change and that trying to do so is dangerous to the individuals. When there is mention of any ex-gays, gay rights activists will do what ever they can to dismiss this fact, by saying that these people didn’t really change, or something to that effect. They do not want people to believe that homosexuals can change because this fact would hurt their agenda.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 2:20 PM on March 24, 2004 | IP
CommentMan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Unfortuantely you're being fooled by the right-wing propoganda. It's simple, the Religious Right does not like the truth to be brought to light about anything. The truth is that these people will do whatever it takes, including lying, creating false research, scapegaoting, distorting all because these "radicals" as they are called believe God gives them permission to do so in order to "Christianize the world", to "destroy all evil" and to "combat Satan".


LOL--this is too much.

This is as amusing as Hillary Clinton running around and yelling "its a vast right-wing conspiracy" and saying that conservatives use "the politics of personal destruction."

You do know that conspiracy theories are another form of propaganda, right? It is ironic that while you accuse LuckyGal of using "right-wing propaganda," that you are spouting the left-wing propaganda of the gay lobby.

This is going to be a good thread, I can tell. ;)

(Edited by CommentMan 3/24/2004 at 2:28 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 2:23 PM on March 24, 2004 | IP
Father of a gay son

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CommentMan at 2:23 PM on March 24, 2004 :


LOL--this is too much.

This is as amusing as Hillary Clinton running around and yelling "its a vast right-wing conspiracy" and saying that conservatives use "the politics of personal destruction."

You do know that conspiracy theories are another form of propaganda, right? It is ironic that while you accuse LuckyGal of using "right-wing propaganda," that you are spouting the left-wing propaganda of the gay lobby.

This is going to be a good thread, I can tell. ;)

(Edited by CommentMan 3/24/2004 at 2:28 PM).



There are people who have left the Religious Right who are revealing their secets, one woman even has her own yahoo group and she's getting a lot of members, which makes her convincing. And I suppose you believe the rest of the Religious Right's claim's that condoms don't protect you from AIDS and sex education and that sex education makes kids want to have sex? If you believe one thing, why not the rest of the cliams of the Religious Right? I suppose it's the sex education experts who are lying then? How do explain Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institiute who was was found to be a liar  in court that his research that gays are more likely to molest kids? You got a lot of learning to do boy. I'm not going to let punks like you come on here and say that you know about my son's feelings to say that he "chose" to be gay better than him, myself or other parents of gay children here! If it was a choice then such "therapy" wouldn't be needed then because they could simply "change" without it! You got a lot of learing and growing up to do boy.


(Edited by admin 3/26/2004 at 1:33 PM).

(Edited by admin 3/26/2004 at 1:35 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 12:18 PM on March 26, 2004 | IP
Father of a gay son

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Hi Valerie, I just wanted to address some things.

"It's true because no one else other than religious right groups claim that homosexuality is a choice."

Even Dr. Robert Spitzer admits it:

"Of course no one chooses to be homosexual and no one chooses to be heterosexual."

"True Christinas would never claim that gays are child molesters either, that it not teaching the love of God. We as true Christians must tell others that lying is not the way of God. "

Exactly Valerie, tell that to Paul Cameron, the "scientist" of the Religious Right who was found to be a big fat liar in court.

"It's also not right to be claiming that gays chose their life because I myself never chose to be straight, it just came natural."

Neither did I or my son.

"P-FLAG had the best questions, yet no one who claims that homosexuality is a choice can answer his questions"

Which makes me wonder why as well.

'The truth is we can't be labeling everything we don't know to well of as a choice. There are people who develope epileptic seizeres, but we can't say that they chose to be epileptic."

True, but for some labeling others for their conditions are the way people want it.

"We can't say that someone's sexual orientation is not the same as race because you cannot change someone race because others can say that if Michael Jackson can change his skin color anyone else can."

Good point.

"I'm sorry, but anyone who reads the arguments on here can realize that the side that says homosexuality is a choice is not providing enough to make others believe so when the information provided comes from religious right grounds instead of actual scientific grounds."

True, even NARTH is a religious based group.

"That's just the truth people, accept it and move on."

I just wish they could, but they want to remain in denial.


Please feel free to come back here Valerie and I thank you for your support.





(Edited by admin 3/26/2004 at 1:39 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 12:40 PM on March 26, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Is that heterosexual or homosexual? Are you saying that it can only be one sexual preference, but not the other.


Both. In order for any behavior or preference to be truly involuntary it must be rooted solely in the biological. Even those who believe that there is a biological element to behavior believe that the environment plays a factor as well. This shows how behavior/preference is not involuntary, thus able to change. Also, if human behavior/preference were involuntary, we would be no better than robots running around, following the programming of our genetics.  


The data for most of these arguments comes from research of religous groups. I'm not the one who brought it in.


NARTH believes that homosexuality is a disease.  Most of the candidates for reorientation therapy go in with confusion and homophobic feelings about who they are pyschologically.  Then they sit through several years of pyschotherapy where they are constantly told that being gay is a disease and They can change those feelings.  They are not changed, brainwashed is a more appropriate term here.

These are biased and unfound truths being forced on to BISEXUALS who feel confused about their feelings.  Reorientation therapy plays on these fears.  Therefore they are not changed, but position their feelings to be more heterosexual than homosexual.  

Until I see some solid proof that people do change, I'll stick with my opinions.  All that I have seen are bisexuals who have chosen to go towards one side of the issue.



(Edited by ffaldo 3/26/2004 at 1:15 PM).

(Edited by admin 3/26/2004 at 1:40 PM).
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 12:56 PM on March 26, 2004 | IP
Valerie Martinez

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi all,

after reading more on here I have comments for each of you.

Luckygal- You started this thread and you have the right to believe what you want. I am a Christian who was taught in church that gay people cannot help with what they were given. But your views do no agree with those who have studied psychology and psychiatry for many years. I'm sorry luckygal, but you can't convince me and the professionsals of the field. Plus you shouldn't be trying to persuade a parent to think differently about his child's feelings when it is he who knows his child and you don't.

Father of a gay son- Of everyone on here I admire you the most for your courage to defend you son, I just wish I could give you a hug.

ffaldo- Like father, I have to agree with your views as well.

J47- I understand about what you say.

P-FLAG- Those are great questions you asked which the opposite side still cannot answer, great job.

Commentman- Of everyone I'm the most concerened about you. I don't know if you hate gay people but I'm getting a bad feeling about you. First of all, it's very rude and unmannerly to be telling off a parent who cares about his child very much. Did your parents ever teach you manners? Your posts have gave me a bad impression about you. You need to grow up and learn to respect people, even those who are older than you. If you cannot do so, then perhaps you should leave otherwise I may have to contact the administrator on here if you keep on attacking father.

Have a good day you all.

 


Posts: 36 | Posted: 2:06 PM on March 26, 2004 | IP
CommentMan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You got a lot of learning to do boy[...]You got a lot of learing and growing up to do boy.


You sound like an arrogant babyboomer trying to act like the father of this board. Get over yourself.

I'm not going to let punks like you come on here and say that you know about my son's feelings to say that he "chose" to be gay better than him, myself or other parents of gay children here!


The personal feelings of your son prove nothing. You don't seem to understand that.

Commentman- Of everyone I'm the most concerened about you.


I'm curious, why are you avoiding LuckyGal's thread on homosexuality and the Bible?
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 7:47 PM on March 26, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We are not going to get anywhere bashing each other.  Just because one's view is not the same as yours, does not make you right.  You are also right that a son's views of his own condition are not proof, enough.  But he can show how the environment in which he was raised and surrounded by did not cause him to make this choice.  But if you are going to ridicule people because of these actions, it isn't going to try and prove anything.

I would also like to see Vanessa's view of the religious aspect of this issue.  I am not a Christian, so my beliefs do not stand in the way.
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 10:43 PM on March 26, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the problem here is in the definition of choice. Many people see a choice as only being a one time, conscience decision. The problem with this definition is that it fails to see any other voluntary actions. In the case of sexuality it is a choice in the sense that it is voluntary and not a one-time decision. It is a “developed choice” that is formed through the development of the individual by combination of the environmental elements and the psychological aspects of the person. A person can grow up in a perfectly “normal” environment that would help influence the choice/development of a heterosexual person, but the way that person takes in (perceives) their environment can lead them to choose/develop into a homosexual.    

There are people who develope epileptic seizeres, but we can't say that they chose to be epileptic.


Epileptic seizers is not a behavior or preference. It is a physical medical condition that a person is born with, the same as any disability. All too often people confuse physical conditions such as epileptic seizers and heart disease as a behavior when they are not. Simply put, physical conditions are not classified as a behavior/preference.    

True, even NARTH is a religious based group.


This is not true. Here is the description of NARTH from their homepage.

“Welcome to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) -- a non-profit, educational organization dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality.

NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychoanalytically informed psychologists, certified social workers, and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen in fields such as law, religion, and education.”

You are insistent upon stating that only religious, more specifically the religious right, people believe that homosexuality is a “choice” and that homosexuals can change. As far as NARTH is concerned, they are not a religious based organization. A few religious members do not make a particular organization religious based. In order to make your claim true, the organization has to be comprised of mostly to all religious members who base their conclusions on their religious faith. Under your point of view, one can conclude that the APA is a religious based organization because of a few religious members.

I would also like to see Vanessa's view of the religious aspect of this issue.


Yes, me too. It would be nice to see her point of view in the thread I started “Homosexuality and the Bible”.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 03:43 AM on March 27, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

think the problem here is in the definition of choice. Many people see a choice as only being a one time, conscience decision. The problem with this definition is that it fails to see any other voluntary actions. In the case of sexuality it is a choice in the sense that it is voluntary and not a one-time decision. It is a “developed choice” that is formed through the development of the individual by combination of the environmental elements and the psychological aspects of the person. A person can grow up in a perfectly “normal” environment that would help influence the choice/development of a heterosexual person, but the way that person takes in (perceives) their environment can lead them to choose/develop into a homosexual.    


For a moment I will take in your opinion of being gay a developed choice.  Even if it s a developed choice, why is it wrong?  Why is it not natural?  A developed choice could be for either homosexuality or heterosexuality.  Now that you have mentioned "DEVELOPED CHOICE" I would fully agree with you.  On being a choice in itself where they force themselves to feel that way, I would not degree.  If it is a naturally developed choice from perception of the environment surrounding the individaul, then there is nothing WRONG with that choice.  It is not a disease that needs to be cured.  It is a "developed" choice that needs to be understood.

 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 04:00 AM on March 27, 2004 | IP
CommentMan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it all comes down to the fact that homosexuals cannot offer any proof that they are homosexual beyond their control aside from talking about their personal feelings and beliefs.

I think "father of a gay son" proves this every time he posts his dogma. All this arguing over psychology and science is pretty much pointless. It is up to folks like father of a gay son, ffaldo, P-FLAG, J-47 and everyone else in the pro-homosexual viewpoint to prove that homosexuality is beyond a person's control.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 06:57 AM on March 27, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Master, God,  made homosexuals.  He also made the homosexuals that will convert back to a normal life, which are the vessels of mercy.  The homosexuals that will not are the one God made for common use.  Those are the ones that did not have the love of the truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11and with all the deception of wickedness for those  who perish, because they did not receive the love of the  truth so as to be saved. For this reason God  will  send upon them a  deluding influence so that they will believe what  is false,

Romans 9:14-23  What  shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May  it never be! For He says to Moses, "I  WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."  So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs,  but on God who has mercy.  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT  THE WHOLE EARTH."  So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.  You  will say to me then, "Why  does He still find fault? For who  resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers  back to God? The  thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?  Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What  if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared  for destruction?  And He did so to make known the  riches of His glory upon vessels  of mercy, which He prepared  beforehand for glory,

In verse 11 of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 we see that some of the faithful we previously unrighteous (in the category listed in 1 Cor 6:9-11), but had the love of the truth to be saved.  Of course, not by their choice, but by God drawing them in.

6:9Or do  you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit  the kingdom of God?  not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,  nor homosexuals,

6:10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit  the kingdom of God.

6:11Such  were some of you; but you were washed,  but you were sanctified,  but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.



(Edited by unworthy servant 3/27/2004 at 08:50 AM).


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:47 AM on March 27, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CommentMan at 06:57 AM on March 27, 2004 :
I think it all comes down to the fact that homosexuals cannot offer any proof that they are homosexual beyond their control aside from talking about their personal feelings and beliefs.

I think "father of a gay son" proves this every time he posts his dogma. All this arguing over psychology and science is pretty much pointless. It is up to folks like father of a gay son, ffaldo, P-FLAG, J-47 and everyone else in the pro-homosexual viewpoint to prove that homosexuality is beyond a person's control.


Why would we have to prove homosexuality is beyond a person's control?  I am not in this category of people who believe homosexuality is biological.  This how the thread started out, but it is not the way that I have stated.

Nothing is beyond a person's control.  Heart disease is biological, but a person can control their health in a way that would try to prevent anything serious from happening.

Also we have conistently shown, from both sides, that it is beyond a person's control.  The fact that there are some homosexuals who now claim to be heterosexuals does not prove that homosexuals did not develop that way.  What I have been arguing is that a person becomes gay naturally.   Luckygal has also made this clear, that it is a developed choice.  A developed choice through the perception of the viewer.  They may have interpreted their environment differently, but it does not make it beyond that person's control.  

I believe I used the example of a person's accent.  It sticks with you no matter how hard you try to get rid of it.  You can control the behavior of that accent at times, but throughout your development when speaking normally you will speak with this accent.  This accent is beyond the person's control.  It was influenced by the environmnet in which he/she was raised.  If they were to stay in that environment words, phrases, slang, etc. would stick with them and continue to grow.

This is in comparison to homosexuality.  Yes a person can choose to be on the heterosexual side.  But at times they get these cravings, maybe not often, but these are beyond their control.  If they had full self-control, they would be able to avoid any cravings of any sort.

One more thing.  It is not up to us to prove that it is beyond our control.  It is up to Luckygal and the others on here side to prove their argument.  Maybe if you actually posted something to try and show that your view should the one and only view that the world should fall under, then I think we will stick to the two or three sides.

(Edited by ffaldo 3/27/2004 at 6:13 PM).
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 6:01 PM on March 27, 2004 | IP
Father of a gay son

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from LuckyGal at 03:43 AM on March 27, 2004 :

There are people who develope epileptic seizeres, but we can't say that they chose to be epileptic.


Epileptic seizers is not a behavior or preference. It is a physical medical condition that a person is born with, the same as any disability. All too often people confuse physical conditions such as epileptic seizers and heart disease as a behavior when they are not. Simply put, physical conditions are not classified as a behavior/preference.    

Epileptic seizers is a condition of the brain, but it not a "chosen" condition. People later in life develope heart disease and maye even develope diabetes but that doesn't mean they were born with it or that they chose it, they were just given it, life isn't fair but you can't get it the way you want it. If a gay child kills himself, then he could have "chose" to change so easily without commiting suicide. Where exactly is the "cure" for diabetes then? Where is the "cure" for AIDS? Sometimes we have to accept what he have because we can't change the world.

True, even NARTH is a religious based group.


This is not true. Here is the description of NARTH from their homepage.

“Welcome to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) -- a non-profit, educational organization dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality.

NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychoanalytically informed psychologists, certified social workers, and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen in fields such as law, religion, and education.”

"You are insistent upon stating that only religious, more specifically the religious right, people believe that homosexuality is a “choice” and that homosexuals can change. As far as NARTH is concerned, they are not a religious based organization. A few religious members do not make a particular organization religious based. In order to make your claim true, the organization has to be comprised of mostly to all religious members who base their conclusions on their religious faith. Under your point of view, one can conclude that the APA is a religious based organization because of a few religious members."

I will reprint what I posted before and perhaps you can explain why then if NARTH is not a religious based group but a pure science group, why are they involved the political anti-gay campaign?:

4. Speaking of children, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the scientific leader of the ex-gay proponents, has reportedly treated children as young as 3 years of age.  And this, we're to believe, is science?

NEWSWEEK, August 17, 1998
Can Gays Convert?
By John Leland and Mark Miller

"Nicolosi's patients, most controversially, can be as young as 3 years old. Like Exodus, he trumpets his success rates, but has done no long-term follow-up study. 'I don't have time,' he says."

5. This isn't about science, it's about anti-gay politics

The "ex-gays" are anti-gay political activists hiding behind the shroud of science.  And while they have the right to push their own anti-gay political agenda, it would certainly be more honest of them to come out and admit what they're really up to.

For example, their web site contains action kits for organizing high school students against gay rights, papers supporting the ban on gay scouts, fact sheets opposing gay marriage and gay adoption, reference information about why private businesses should not provide domestic partner benefits to their gay employees, why gay sex is unhealthy and why companies shouldn't have non-discrimination policies protecting gays.  For example, check out the following political materials found on the Web site of the lead "ex-gay" organization that purports to be about science and not politics.

tolerance of gays in schools: activists guide: "this handbook is filled with useful suggestions for all parents on how to limit the scope of homosexual activism in public education, while restoring a family-friendly climate for schoolchildren."
http://www.narth.com/docs/takeback.html

gay adoption
http://www.narth.com/docs/endorse.html

gay marriage
http://www.narth.com/docs/marco.html

gay parenting
http://www.narth.com/docs/lernernagai.html

gays and pedophilia
http://www.narth.com/docs/moreonped.html

gay civil rights
http://www.narth.com/docs/dilemma.html

gays and the Boy Scouts
http://www.narth.com/docs/teensama.html

gays and workplace discrimination
http://www.narth.com/docs/employers.html

6. When you read Dr. Nicolosi's quotes (the president of the lead "ex-gay" scientific organization), it's clear that he is hardly an objective unbiased scientist.

Dr. Nicolosi made these statements at the "Love Won Out" conference in Decatur, Georgia on October 13, 2001.  (I have the entire conference on tape - these quotes are verbatim):

"Homosexual men are twice as more likely to sexually molest than the heterosexual man. And then let’s think about it for a moment, let’s look at this heterosexual man who sexually molests a homosexual boy. How do you define homosexual or heterosexual? Is he a homosexual or is he heterosexual. Well he might be married, but so what don’t gays themselves say “we are everywhere.”? Is he homosexual or is he heterosexual? One of the best ways to define a person’s identity is by his behavior and let me get this straight, you’re having sex with a boy, hmmm, two penises, now is that homosexual or heterosexual, this is how absurd it becomes. I said the word penis, they’ll have to edit that out."

"There is no such thing as a homosexual. Homosexual is a description of a condition, it’s not a description of the person. We are all heterosexual, some heterosexuals have a homosexual problem."

"A homosexual is a person who because of certain events in his past has lost touch with his authentic heterosexual nature. It’s based upon a sense of inferiority about one’s sense of gender."

"If there is an older brother, it’s a fear-hostile relationship with the older brother, I have never seen an exception to that. I have never seen a man with a homosexual problem speak with admiration and pride and love of his older brother."

"The gay identify offers breaking out of this good little boy mode, and that’s why being gay is being bad, this idea of the sexual outlaw, there’s something exciting about that. They become bad boys. If you ever take a look at a gay bar, it’s wild, it’s outrageous, it’s like big boys being bad little boys."

"We see exhibitionism in adulthood with gays."

"So much of the gay agenda is selling the idea that two men or two women are capable of maintaining the kind of life the kind of relationship that is equivalent to heterosexuality. Not true."

7. To illustrate  just how wacky the "science" is that's backing the ex-gay proponents, these are a few of the things that they say causes people to turn out gay:

Masturbation

Pornography

Spousal abuse in the home

Effects of the media/culture

Parental adultery

Moral relativism

Seduction by peers

Nearsightedness

Hearing loss

Chemical imbalances

Parents parading nude around the house

Poor hand-eye coordination

Generational curse

Intrauterine trauma - "If the mother was experiencing difficulty in her relationships with her husband while carrying the child or if she felt rejected, unloved, or unwanted by him or she experienced any other painful feelings during pregnancy."

8.  And these are a few of the ways the ex-gay experts "cure" gay people and make them heterosexual:

Men should play sports

Men practice going fishing, women practice putting on make-up

Men are taught to sit the right way, no crossed legs

Men are taught not to stand with their hand on their hip

Take away a man's Calvin Klein clothes and Barbra Streisand records

Men should avoid extreme sarcastic behavior

Men should wear short business-like haircuts

Show a gay man photos of nude men while placing rotted hamburger meat under his nose - he will then associated repulsion with same-sex attraction

The laying of hands on a gay man in front of the assembled church congregation

Reading a specific prayer over your gay child to list his "generational curse"

Forcibly abduct gay teens in their sleep, handcuff them, and send them to military boot camps where they are forced to march 20 miles a day with weights on their backs (this is a true, and horrible, story).


I hope you also read about Dr. Robert Spitzer said :"Of course no one chooses to be homosexual and no one chooses to be heterosexual."



I would also like to see Vanessa's view of the religious aspect of this issue.


Yes, me too. It would be nice to see her point of view in the thread I started “Homosexuality and the Bible”.


This however I cannot speak of because I prefer to let Valerie speak on this one, and I'm sure she will.

[b][/b]
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 12:51 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
Father of a gay son

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CommentMan at 06:57 AM on March 27, 2004 :

I think it all comes down to the fact that homosexuals cannot offer any proof that they are homosexual beyond their control aside from talking about their personal feelings and beliefs.

I think "father of a gay son" proves this every time he posts his dogma. All this arguing over psychology and science is pretty much pointless. It is up to folks like father of a gay son, ffaldo, P-FLAG, J-47 and everyone else in the pro-homosexual viewpoint to prove that homosexuality is beyond a person's control.



How come you can't provide answers to P-FLAG's common sence questions? Why do you and Luckygal keep avoiding them? Care to share on this, or this you just can't give answers?

 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 12:55 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
Valerie Martinez

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wanted to poin out some things here. Luckygal, conditions wheter people are born with them or not does not prove them to chosen. Some conditions such as father says, diabetes, come later on without being born with or choses. Some people get Obsessive Compulsive Disorder or Attention Defecit Disorder, but they are developed and people who have them wouldn't need medication if they were chosen. Also the issue is about NARTH, the group that is commonly mentioned on here. If in fact NARTH were a science based group, then they stay away from the politcal antigay agenda. Supporting the ban on gay scouts, organizing high school students agaisnt gay rights and supporting the ban on gay adoption does not seem like this is a believable organization. They also claim that gays molest children more than straights, something that seems suspicious there because it sounds more political than scientific. While NARTH is the only group mentioned to support the view that homosexuality is a choice, one compared to the many organizations father posted on the issue does not seem to show support for the view of homosexuality as a choice.
 


Posts: 36 | Posted: 2:06 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
Valerie Martinez

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ffaldo at 12:56 PM on March 26, 2004 :



NARTH believes that homosexuality is a disease.  Most of the candidates for reorientation therapy go in with confusion and homophobic feelings about who they are pyschologically.  Then they sit through several years of pyschotherapy where they are constantly told that being gay is a disease and They can change those feelings.  They are not changed, brainwashed is a more appropriate term here.

These are biased and unfound truths being forced on to BISEXUALS who feel confused about their feelings.  Reorientation therapy plays on these fears.  Therefore they are not changed, but position their feelings to be more heterosexual than homosexual.  

Until I see some solid proof that people do change, I'll stick with my opinions.  All that I have seen are bisexuals who have chosen to go towards one side of the issue.



You pretty much summed up my views ffaldo



 


Posts: 36 | Posted: 2:09 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
Valerie Martinez

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it's time we leave this thread alone for awhile in order to address some other issues here on other threads.
 


Posts: 36 | Posted: 2:10 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
NokX

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i definitely don't think it's biological (i'll explain in a second), but i don't believe it is a choice either.  i didn't sit down and say, hmm...i think i'll like girls. (i'm male, btw)  ;)

do straight people like all people of the opposite sex?  no.
do gay people like all people of the same sex?  no.
do bi people like all people of both sexes?  no.

we like certain things about people, which is a personal preference.  i don't see why it is so complicated.  i like girls that take care of themselves, have at least a b-cup chest, keep in shape, pretty eyes, have body parts that interact well with my own (i won't get graphic), etc...

a male does not fulfill those requirements for me.  do i believe i was hardwired to like a certain type of person?  no.

there's a big controversy about "converting" a homosexual/bisexual to being straight and a straight to homosexual/bisexual, etc...  the thing is...you can't force anyone to do anything.  especially if it is an emotion.  it has to be a "choice" they make to leave that lifestyle.

because i break up with a girl doesn't mean i stop caring for her...  but if i REALLY want to get over her i best start putting my mind elsewhere.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:34 PM on July 7, 2004 | IP
joebrummer

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no scientific evidence that conversion or reparative therapy works.  There is also no evidence to support that gays can change their sexual orientation any more than heterosexuals can change theirs.      

It is commonly accepted in the Scientific world that sexual orientation either gay or straight is hard wired into the brain at a young age.

It appears that Humanbeing has some sort of hate trip going seeing as though this poster has started numerous threads denouncing homosexuality.   I would make an educated guess, this is a latent homosexual with some enternal fear of their own sexuality.


-------
www.joebrummer.com
 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 12:11 AM on September 29, 2004 | IP
Sol

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There's no way it's purely biological.  That doesn't make sense in so many ways.

But then again, it's pretty obvious that people don't consciously choose to be homosexual either.

To me, that means that the only possibility is that homosexuality is a choice, but one that is typically made subconsciously.
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 04:21 AM on January 9, 2005 | IP
Admiral Valdemar

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's a pity homosexuality is a common feature in nature, thus lending credence to the fact that there must be some biological role in it (or does every homosexual animal make such an important social choice?).

Additionally, LeVay's studies don't conclude there is or isn't a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. Genetics does not underline every event that happens to your body exclusively. Environment has much to do with it and that is not choice either. I certainly find the idea laughable that a homosexual just woke up one day during puberty and thought "Hey, my sex is mighty fine, I think I'll start wishing to screw it and maybe marry a member someday.".

Whether you agree with the practice or not is another matter. I'm heterosexual and have no inclination to become gay. But I also don't find it "evil" or "immoral", whatever the hell they're meant to mean. If the subject was paedophilia, then there'd be harm done and it could be called evil and immoral by many more people, even those who don't follow religious dogma to the T. But this isn't the case and homosexuality is a lifestyle and just as I have the right to make love to and marry a woman, others can follow their sexual leanings.


-------
"An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations encountered just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop."
-Iain M. Banks, Excession
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 3:33 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
justforfun000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've rarely seen such misinformation posing as logic.

There's too much to pick apart completely. I'm just going to grab some major points

[random] There's no way it's purely biological.  That doesn't make sense in so many ways.[random]

And your credentials in biology are? Statements like there is “no way” instantly invalidate you as anything more than an obviously uneducated person in the ways of science. No scientist worth his or her salt would make such sweeping declarations.

What YOU don't understand is in no way related to what "makes sense"


[random] One more thing.  It is not up to us to prove that it is beyond our control.  It is up to Luckygal and the others on here side to prove their argument.  Maybe if you actually posted something to try and show that your view should the one and only view that the world should fall under, then I think we will stick to the two or three sides.[random]

Ultimately it doesn't make one BIT of difference if it's beyond someone's control.

It doesn't make one BIT of difference if it is a choice.

It doesn't make one BIT of difference if it is hardwired, or changeable.

What DOES make a difference is what is your point about being homosexual? Are the people trying to declare it a "choice" automatically assuming the viewpoint that it is not desirable? THAT'S the crux of the issue here.

If people have a problem with homosexuality, then trot out your argument against what's WRONG with it.

Who cares if it's not "natural"? The evidence definitely says it is, but even if it wasn't, so what?  Do you think it's "natural" for humans to drink cow's milk? Did Mother Nature somehow evolve us into desiring to suckle a cow?

Is it "natural" for us to ride a bicycle instead of using our own two feet?

People get hung up on this idiot word and it's really nothing more than an emotional catchphrase implying "goodness". It's ridiculous. ANYTHING that happens in this world in any continuing pattern can be deemed "natural". It's found IN NATURE. We are part of nature. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out to its conclusion.

LuckyGal, you are either not very good at research, or you are deliberately obfuscating the issue regarding NARTH not being a Christian organization. Granted they have overhauled their website to make it look like there is no direct religious connection, and I know this because in the past I have looked at it and was able to copy and paste MANY references to their "philosophy" being tied to Christianity. But there are still nuggets left. This link here:

http://www.narth.com/menus/ethical.html

This has links to many articles from a theological standpoint on the issue.

Mixed in on this page here:

http://www.narth.com/menus/reso.html

is an article:   The Church and Homosexuality, by Rev. Russell G. Waldrop

Two points: Credible scientific organizations do not use religious sources or opinions at ALL because science and faith do not mix. They are completely incompatible, and it's unethical to include religious views in scientific associations.

Secondly, EVERY single link they have is biased in favour of NARTH's position. That is not proper science.

NARTH is no different than the dissidents that are against the HIV virus as not being responsible for AIDS.

Anyone wanting to compare should go to http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/ and read about the EMINENT scientists listed there, and their overwhelming evidence that HIV is harmless. See the credentials and hear about the grand conspiracy to cover up the "truth" about AIDS.

You will see the similarity to NARTH very easily.

To Unworthy Servant:

Drivel, drivel, drivel.

You can yada yada Bible quotes all day and they still won't be any more valid as a point.

Since I can take MANY quotes out of the Bible and destroy them completely with logic and proof, not to mention paint you so far into a corner that you'd have to balance on your toenail, I won't even bother addressing your diatribe.

To everyone in general, you have to understand that "proof" is a very nebulous concept and there is no such thing as absolute proof. To expect that, you would have to delve into solipsism, and anyone who goes that far is simply going off to silliness.

You are all asking the wrong question. It shouldn't be if homosexuality is a choice.

It's should homosexuality be in any way considered inferior, or undesirable than heterosexuality.

THAT'S the debate that will really separate the truth from the bull. People’s lifestyle choices that are unhealthy such as promiscuity, or unsafe sex are NOT arguments supporting homosexuality as bad. Heterosexuals engage in the same behaviour, so it’s not limited exclusively.

That’s just a small disclaimer to let anyone know that repetitive examples of such things are never going to tar homosexuality as bad because there is not a direct cause and effect link between the two. So be careful anyone who tries to go up this worn out path because it’s easily disproved.





 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 3:36 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
Tigerlilly

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Me being or not being a psychiatrist is not the issue here. It does not lessen the fact that the APA is not in total agreement about homosexuality. It is intellectually dishonest to consider the APA as a singular entity that wholeheartedly backs the idea that homosexuality is involuntary. Here are some quotes/positions of a few influential members of the APA.



So? Who cares if a minority of the APA disagrees with teh maintream psychological foundings? Who bloody cares?

There are people within the scientific community who disagree with evolution and support creationism as well. THey are idiots. Just because there is dissention or disagreement doesn't mean it's relevant or important.

There will always be disagreement, but it doesn't affect the validity of mainstream findings.




-------
If it hurts no one, then there's nothing immoral about it.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 9:19 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
VT-16

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Homosexuality isn't biological"

I guess this behaviour registered among approx. 450 different species of animals can only be attributed to "doing it to piss off their parents"? ;)

By all means it is an abnormal trait, since a small portion of the population are gay, otherwise it would be considered normal. However "abnormal" does not equal "unnatural", which is where some people draw false conclusions. It´s a natural phenomenon (in some species more prevalent than in humans), but it exists in a small part of the population and there´s no "danger" of humanity running out of kids anytime soon.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:38 PM on January 12, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.