The Notion of curing sexuality: No cure in sight [Archive]

DRMIZER

08-11-2006, 04:13 PM

I take exception to anyone, including Christians, who claim that homosexuals have been "healed" of their sexual orientation.

Human sexuality is on a continuum, with complete heterosexuality at one extreme, exclusive homosexuality at the other and bisexuality in the middle. An almost infinite number of gradations fall between the extremes. Absolute heterosexuals are only sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Absolute homosexuals are only sexually attracted to members of their own sex. Absolute bisexuals are equally attracted to either sex, and they are the only people in the world who have a choice about their sexuality. Being bisexual is not a true sexual orientation. The true identity factor is lacking.

A bisexual, for reasons of religious, familial or cultural pressure, may choose to live as an absolute heterosexual and be happy with the decision. But no absolute homosexual has ever been cured of homosexuality, any more than any absolute heterosexual has ever been cured of heterosexuality.

Furthermore, the idea that homosexuality is a moral sin abhorrent to Christianity is a gross distortion of Christ's teachings. It was Paul, the converted Pharisee, who had a problem with homosexuality, and it is Paul who is always quoted on the topic. But Paul also had a problem with sex in general, grudgingly saying that it was better to marry than to burn.

Jesus never uttered a word about homosexuality. Had he been asked, I suspect his answer was the one we rarely quote: "What is that to you?"

The Big Bog

08-11-2006, 04:37 PM

I'm a homosexual magnet. I have no idea why. There are so many gay guys in this town and I swear it seems like every single one of them knows me. They seek me out for some reason. I must emit some kind of ultrasonic wave that pings their "hag dar."

Hubby and I went to dinner last night before going to an event at the cineplex. It was a place we rarely ever go but we picked it because it was close to the theater. We sat at the bar as we were kind of in a hurry. As it turned out, the bartender was a big ol' flamer. We hit it off like fries and ketchup. And then the bartender's twin brother shows up and--surprise, surprise--he was also gay! Twin brothers, both gay. Hmmm.

There's just no convincing me otherwise that genetics doesn't play the deciding role in one's sexuality.

burntgorilla

08-11-2006, 04:46 PM

The more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay. Doesn't matter if you never even meet them, it happens in the womb. I'm pretty sure that it's at the very least mostly based in genetics.

brainpan

08-11-2006, 04:46 PM

I believe in natural causes of homosexuality, but I'm suspicious of the 100% gay male.
First of all, women are more likely to have homosexual feelings than men, so if a male identifies with the female sex, I draw the admittedly ironic conclusion that it makes him open to sex with females.

I would never unreservedly trust a lady of mine into the protection of gay men. I still view them as a threat. In my book, everyone wants to have sex with women, who can blame them? :)

burntgorilla

08-11-2006, 04:50 PM

Women are more likely to have homosexual feelings that men? I've never heard that before. Are you sure that it's not just that men are less willing to admit it?

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 05:16 PM

"I take exception to anyone, including Christians, who claim that homosexuals have been "healed" of their sexual orientation."

How about from people that claim they used to be homosexuals but are no longer? Are they lying?

The Big Bog

08-11-2006, 05:24 PM

How about from people that claim they used to be homosexuals but are no longer? Are they lying?
No, just repressing. There's a difference. And BTW, they usually revert.

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 05:29 PM

No, just repressing. There's a difference. And BTW, they usually revert.

Do you have empirical evidence to support these statements?

Dutch

08-11-2006, 05:37 PM

The Big Bog

08-11-2006, 05:41 PM

Do you have empirical evidence to support these statements?
The APA. They should know. They study human psychology for a living:

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

Do you have any credible empiricial evidence that reparation therapy actually works?

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 05:41 PM

I must say, I'm uncomfortable with the concept we are nothing more than automatons. I've always believed we have free will to decide, pretty much everything in our lives. If not, what's the point of our being here in the first place?

Do you have empirical data to support we are nothing more than automatons?
Do you have empirical data to support that we have free will?
Do you have empirical data that we are, in fact, here in the first place?

The Big Bog

08-11-2006, 05:43 PM

I must say, I'm uncomfortable with the concept we are nothing more than automatons. I've always believed we have free will to decide, pretty much everything in our lives. If not, what's the point of our being here in the first place?
I agree. This morning I got up and made up my mind that I was going to look just like Brooke Shields. I closed my eyes, gritted my teeth, and BING! I was voluptuous. Never have I been more pleased to look in the mirror.

Atticus

08-11-2006, 05:45 PM

Do you have empirical data to support we are nothing more than automatons?
Do you have empirical data to support that we have free will?
Do you have empirical data that we are, in fact, here in the first place?These are all hard things to provide empirical evidence for. I think the questions themselves are kind of belligerent.

brainpan

08-11-2006, 05:45 PM

If not, what's the point of our being here in the first place?Why assume there is a point outside of our own experience? Perhaps the only meaning to our existence is whatever we choose to bring to it.

Dutch

08-11-2006, 05:54 PM

Do you have empirical data to support we are nothing more than automatons?
Do you have empirical data to support that we have free will?
Do you have empirical data that we are, in fact, here in the first place?

Do you have an irritating debating style? why, yes, yes, you do. But then, you aren't really interested in debating this point at all, are you? I don't blame you, it's so much easier to simply make statements showing your fielty to a particular political creed irrespective of what science tells us, or in this case doesn't tell us. ;)

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 05:55 PM

The APA. They should know. They study human psychology for a living:

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

Do you have any credible empiricial evidence that reparation therapy actually works?

They state this:

To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments.

but then contradict themselves by stating this:

APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

and I think this clarifies the motive of their position, since they themselves admit there is no conclusive data either way.

The American Psychiatric Association has already taken clear stands against discrimination, prejudice and unethical treatment on a variety of issues including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 05:58 PM

These are all hard things to provide empirical evidence for. I think the questions themselves are kind of belligerent.

ok..kind of like somebody asking you to provide empirical evidence for the existence of God, eh.

My questions are aggressively hostile?

dittohead not!

08-11-2006, 05:58 PM

I must say, I'm uncomfortable with the concept we are nothing more than automatons. I've always believed we have free will to decide, pretty much everything in our lives. If not, what's the point of our being here in the first place?

We can choose, no doubt about it. If a person is a homosexual, he/she can choose to fight it, to repress it, and to attempt to be a hetrosexual. There are two more choices as well: Admit it and be what God made you to be, or simply ignore it and be celebate. Very few ever choose the third option, but it's there.

Becoming a hetrosexual when you're not is not an option, any more than becoming white if you're born black... well, there is Michael Jackson... :thinking:

Dutch

08-11-2006, 06:00 PM

I agree. This morning I got up and made up my mind that I was going to look just like Brooke Shields. I closed my eyes, gritted my teeth, and BING! I was voluptuous. Never have I been more pleased to look in the mirror.

I'm sure it's a treat for your husband as well. ;)

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 06:02 PM

Do you have an irritating debating style? why, yes, yes, you do. But then, you aren't really interested in debating this point at all, are you? I don't blame you, it's so much easier to simply make statements showing your fielty to a particular political creed irrespective of what science tells us, or in this case doesn't tell us. ;)

Do you have empirical data to prove I am not interested in debating this point?

Do you have empirical data to prove my fiety to a particular politcal creed?

Science? I am asking for scientifc evidence. Why is it that others can demand empirical evidence from some on every debate, but when I do, I am being belligerent or adhering to some mystery, albeit, negative politcal creed. LOL.

brainpan

08-11-2006, 06:03 PM

Women are more likely to have homosexual feelings that men? I've never heard that before. Are you sure that it's not just that men are less willing to admit it?There's always that possibilty too. Now that you have made me think about it, I have no idea if any study I have read reflects the truth.

I googled up a source for you, but it should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I left the page cached to make the relevent portions easier to find.From this we can therefore deduce that 11.7% of women and 8.1% of men have felt a sexual attraction towards the same sex at least once in their lives. link (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:f4GmcrLErGgJ:www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm+%22homosexual+feelings%22+%22women%22+% 22percentage%22+%2211.7%25%22+%228.1%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1)

Dutch

08-11-2006, 06:11 PM

We can choose, no doubt about it. If a person is a homosexual, he/she can choose to fight it, to repress it, and to attempt to be a hetrosexual. There are two more choices as well: Admit it and be what God made you to be, or simply ignore it and be celebate. Very few ever choose the third option, but it's there.

Becoming a hetrosexual when you're not is not an option, any more than becoming white if you're born black... well, there is Michael Jackson... :thinking:

I have an admission to make here. I have absolutely no idea why some people are homosexual while others are heterosexual. I wasn't raised in a vacuum. I've worked with homosexuals, have homosexual relatives, and a ton of homosexual neighbors. At some fundamental level.....I'm totally clueless. Having said that, until a "gay" gene is found. I'm going to have misgivings about the whole "you have no control over your life" school of thought. I suppose I just need a better theory.

dittohead not!

08-11-2006, 06:19 PM

Do you have empirical data to prove my fiety to a particular politcal creed?

:laughter: :laughter: :laughter: :laughter: :laughter:

Well, there is just every post you have ever made on this forum, but then, that's just enough for an hypothesis. To test it, let's see if you ever make a post that could be shown to be based on fact, research, or anything other than your personal interpretation of the Bible, supported by your religious training.

Atticus

08-11-2006, 06:19 PM

ok..kind of like somebody asking you to provide empirical evidence for the existence of God, eh.

My questions are aggressively hostile?I see your point. But this reflects on a question you asked a long time ago. If I may paraphrase you, you asked if it is reasonable to have a thread where you discuss the Bible without having to prove at every turn that it's contents are true. In my mind, that's an excellent question. Stated more broadly, your question is "can a poster pose a question and set the parameters of the discussion within certain bounds?"

I'm afraid the answer is no. Essentially, you were asking if you could have a Bible study on WS and be left in peace. That's just not possible. It's like conducting a Bible study in a shopping mall. Sorry, but if you do that you'll have people running through your circle shouting "the Bible is crap," and no one will stop them. You can thank people for leaving well enough alone, but you can't demand they do so. Conduct like that breaks no forum rules.

If you want to hold forth on subjects of this kind, you'll have to face all comers--or you can set them to "ignore," I suppose.

I respect your efforts, Neo, and your attempts to make reasoned, scholarly arguments. But you can't limit the grounding of arguments in a thread to a single text or delimit them in anyway, really. Even though we have a "Religion and Philosophy" forum, we don't have a "Christian" forum, so you'll constantly be interrupted here by those who reject the entire construct of your arguments. :sorry:

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 06:23 PM

:laughter: :laughter: :laughter: :laughter: :laughter:

Well, there is just every post you have ever made on this forum, but then, that's just enough for an hypothesis. To test it, let's see if you ever make a post that could be shown to be based on fact, research, or anything other than your personal interpretation of the Bible, supported by your religious training.

Fact, you are a ugly dog.

brainpan

08-11-2006, 06:30 PM

Even though we have a "Religion and Philosophy" forum, we don't have a "Christian" forum, so you'll constantly be interrupted here by those who reject the entire construct of your arguments. :sorry:I fought hard to promote the creation of a Christian (believers only) forum for that very reason. Unfortunately, Christians rushed over to attack my idea on every front and helped to make sure it never came into existence. I'll have to resist the urge to take grim satisfaction at neo's plight. :o

Dutch

08-11-2006, 06:31 PM

[QUOTE]Do you have empirical data to prove I am not interested in debating this point?

Human behavior doesn't easily lend itself to classical empiricism.

Do you have empirical data to prove my fiety to a particular politcal creed?

I'm guessing your not a religious political conservative.

Science? I am asking for scientifc evidence. Why is it that others can demand empirical evidence from some on every debate, but when I do, I am being belligerent or adhering to some mystery, albeit, negative politcal creed. LOL.

I know, I know. I don't like it when the other children don't play fair either.

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 06:59 PM

[....]

I thought it was a funny joke.

sub_zer0

08-11-2006, 07:15 PM

AFurthermore, the idea that homosexuality is a moral sin abhorrent to Christianity is a gross distortion of Christ's teachings. It was Paul, the converted Pharisee, who had a problem with homosexuality, and it is Paul who is always quoted on the topic. But Paul also had a problem with sex in general, grudgingly saying that it was better to marry than to burn.

Jesus never uttered a word about homosexuality. Had he been asked, I suspect his answer was the one we rarely quote: "What is that to you?"

You are grossly mis-stating Paul. His words are based on Christ's teachings, and he stated it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Marriage between man and woman is all that should be done, nothing else, point blank. One of the most clearest docrtines of the Bible.

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 07:26 PM

[QUOTE=neo of the mind]
Human behavior doesn't easily lend itself to classical empiricism.
I'm guessing your not a religious political conservative.
I know, I know. I don't like it when the other children don't play fair either.

I don't expect you to give me empirical data, nor do I care at this time to evaluate it. My asking of empirical data for everything is a very slight exaggeration of what others on this forum do consistently and in a ridiculous manner considering it's a forum and not a board of inquiry, so it was a joke.

Actually I am a political conservative.

dittohead not!

08-11-2006, 07:34 PM

I thought it was a funny joke.

Since it was deleted before I saw it, there is no alternative to consider it a funny joke. I'll never know.

Dutch

08-11-2006, 07:37 PM

[QUOTE=Dutch]

Actually I am a political conservative.

I always was a lousy guesser.

steveksux

08-11-2006, 07:59 PM

Women are more likely to have homosexual feelings that men? I've never heard that before. Are you sure that it's not just that men are less willing to admit it?No, actually its been scientifically proven. There's a documentary series out, I think from PBS. You may have heard of it, its called "Girls Gone Wild".

Randy

brainpan

08-11-2006, 08:12 PM

No, actually its been scientifically proven. There's a documentary series out, I think from PBS. You may have heard of it, its called "Girls Gone Wild".

Randy .....:lol:

steveksux

08-11-2006, 08:19 PM

If homosexuality was so easy to cure, people wouldn't be so afraid to try it.

Randy

DRMIZER

08-11-2006, 09:08 PM

As a member of the APA, I am quite familiar with their stance on homosexuality. Freud believed homosexuality was a mental disorder. The old boy was not right on this point.

Having had many, many sessions with the homosexual population, their purpose for counseling is NOT to attempt a shift in their sexuality. Their primary concerns include why them"; how do I live with this; how do I tell friends and relatives; issues with self-acceptance; religious banishment.

I have yet to have a client who sought therapy to change their sexual orientation. What happens to those who state they have "changed". Their change is abstinence, not marriage or courting the opposite sex. If homosexuals do, for the sake of society, begin to try to fit into a hetrosexual mold, they are miserable as hell and back in the office for therapy.

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 09:20 PM

"Their primary concerns include why them"; how do I live with this"

I thought there wasn't anything abnormal about it? Isn't that what they and non-homosexual liberals want the population to believe?

Since you a memeber of the APA, what about pedophilia, necrophilia and a host of other abnormal mental conditions? Are they not abnormal as well?
Should it be accepted by society since they were "born that way"?

sub_zer0

08-11-2006, 09:28 PM

"Their primary concerns include why them"; how do I live with this"

I thought there wasn't anything abnormal about it? Isn't that what they and non-homosexual liberals want the population to believe?

Since you a memeber of the APA, what about pedophilia, necrophilia and a host of other abnormal mental conditions? Are they not abnormal as well?
Should it be accepted by society since they were "born that way"?

Lets not get started on the gay gene crap... The homosexual outcome is a product of the enviroment more than anything else. No dad, no mom, kid was beat or some other traumatic event.

It takes a choice in acting upon the things running in your head, to excuse homosexuality is to excuse sin to me. Sin of any kind is a concious choice.

DRMIZER

08-11-2006, 09:30 PM

Since you a memeber of the APA, what about pedophilia, necrophilia and a host of other abnormal mental conditions? Are they not abnormal as well?
Should it be accepted by society since they were "born that way"?Fortunately most people in society make a clear delineation between the conditions you mention above. One of the problems in psychology is that fundamentalist thinkers tend to lump sexual acting out into one basket. Of course, such is not factual.

DRMIZER

08-11-2006, 09:34 PM

Lets not get started on the gay gene crap... The homosexual outcome is a product of the enviroment more than anything else. No dad, no mom, kid was beat or some other traumatic event.

It takes a choice in acting upon the things running in your head, to excuse homosexuality is to excuse sin to me. Sin of any kind is a concious choice.And you received your training where? BTW, what you claim is no more than an urban legend, superstition, mingled in with theological beliefs.

sub_zer0

08-11-2006, 09:36 PM

And you received your training where? BTW, what you claim is no more than an urban legend, superstition, mingled in with theological beliefs.

Training, gee lemme see... THE WORD OF GOD my friend!

Wait a minute... you don't choose to be gay and have sex with men? Oh I see, this must be another case of religion controlling ones mind... Give me a break!

Craig

08-11-2006, 09:37 PM

The homosexual outcome is a product of the enviroment more than anything else. No dad, no mom, kid was beat or some other traumatic event.

This statement here is directly from the Word of God? Where does this idea appear in the Bible?

sub_zer0

08-11-2006, 09:38 PM

This statement here is directly from the Word of God? Where does this idea appear in the Bible?

That isn't what I was referring to was from the Bible. More that homosexuality is a sin and a concious choice is more Biblical, that however what you are referring to is the SCIENCE.

DRMIZER

08-11-2006, 09:42 PM

Training, gee lemme see... THE WORD OF GOD my friend!

Wait a minute... you don't choose to be gay and have sex with men? Oh I see, this must be another case of religion controlling ones mind... Give me a break!That's what I thought your "training" might be. Homosexuality isn't a moral problem. It's a perception problem. Science has made a few discoveries in medicine and psychology since the bible was written. But, as you know, the bible was never updated, revised or stayed with the times.

Sorry, I won't debate this with you. Sometimes the facts are what they are regardless of what we believe.

There's an old saying. . . ."Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up." We'll let it go at that. ;)

sub_zer0

08-11-2006, 09:46 PM

Sorry, I won't debate this with you. Sometimes the facts are what they are regardless of what we believe.

There's an old saying. . . ."Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up." We'll let it go at that. ;)

What facts, the facts I just stated?

So, I will then allow myself to think that your opinion is that to be gay or to actually act on those thoughts, isn't a choice in your mind..... SCARY!

I also think, those who believe that homosexuality is genetic and believe in evolution are actually advocating the destruction of them.

sub_zer0

08-11-2006, 09:50 PM

[
edit...

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 09:51 PM

"Fortunately most people in society make a clear delineation between the conditions you mention above."

-Yes, the determination of deviant behaviour has a lot to do with society. Why would society think differently of a pedophile than a homosexual. They both have a sexual orientations that they are born with, and I say that for the sake of argument. Is their behaviour normal or not.

"One of the problems in psychology is that fundamentalist thinkers tend to lump sexual acting out into one basket. Of course, such is not factual."

-As stated above, if psychology considers that homosexuals are born inately with their specific sexual desires, what about the pedophile or the necrophile?
You may not be comfortable in having them lumped together, but what is the difference between them?

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 09:59 PM

That's what I thought your "training" might be. Homosexuality isn't a moral problem. It's a perception problem. Science has made a few discoveries in medicine and psychology since the bible was written. But, as you know, the bible was never updated, revised or stayed with the times.

Sorry, I won't debate this with you. Sometimes the facts are what they are regardless of what we believe.

There's an old saying. . . ."Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up." We'll let it go at that. ;)

What exactly is this perception problem per chance? That it's ABNORMAL?
You can make all the Will & Grace tv shows and Brokeback Mountains you want, this perception will never change by honest people.

The facts are that men's bodies are built for sexual intercourse with women and vice versa and that is the only way reproduction happens naturally.
This goes for animals too.

sub_zer0

08-11-2006, 10:07 PM

The facts are that men's bodies are built for sexual intercourse with women and vice versa and that is the only way reproduction happens naturally.
This goes for animals too.

And that is exactly why those advocating evolution and the gay gene are actually advocating the death of gays. Gays will never be able to reproduce, therfore they are doomed if they are genetically gay.

JoeR

08-11-2006, 10:19 PM

-As stated above, if psychology considers that homosexuals are born inately with their specific sexual desires, what about the pedophile or the necrophile?You may not be comfortable in having them lumped together, but what is the difference between them?

What about the heterosexual?

The difference between the homosexual and the rest you listed is that THEY HARM NO ONE.

The facts are that men's bodies are built for sexual intercourse with women and vice versa and that is the only way reproduction happens naturally.This goes for animals too.

This would matter at all if sex were only for procreation and if we were only bound by the natural uses for things. If man were meant to fly he would have wings I suppose?

JoeR

08-11-2006, 10:21 PM

And that is exactly why those advocating evolution and the gay gene are actually advocating the death of gays. Gays will never be able to reproduce, therfore they are doomed if they are genetically gay.

Ignoring of course recessive genes, gays reproducing anyway in doomed heterosexual relationships, surrogate parents, a non-gene natural cause such as chemical conditions in the womb, etc.

Dangerrmouse

08-11-2006, 10:23 PM

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 10:33 PM

[JoeR]What about the heterosexual?

The difference between the homosexual and the rest you listed is that THEY HARM NO ONE.

Oh, so if they harm nobody then their behavior can not be considered abnormal...what about all the other mental diseases that people have that doesn't result in the harm of anyone? You would consider them normal based on your parameter of no harm.

This would matter at all if sex were only for procreation and if we were only bound by the natural uses for things. If man were meant to fly he would have wings I suppose?

Yup, my johnson is designed for two fluids to come out, if I could unnaturally cause a third to come forth, does it then make it a part of it's normal function?

If man was meant to fly by his own physical means, then he would have wings and very light bones...instead, God created us with a brain.

dittohead not!

08-11-2006, 10:40 PM

"Their primary concerns include why them"; how do I live with this"

I thought there wasn't anything abnormal about it? Isn't that what they and non-homosexual liberals want the population to believe?

Since you a memeber of the APA, what about pedophilia, necrophilia and a host of other abnormal mental conditions? Are they not abnormal as well?
Should it be accepted by society since they were "born that way"?

Could it be that the "this" in "how do I live with this" referrs not to sexual orientation but the bigotry of society, fueled by religious dogma?

neo of the mind

08-11-2006, 10:45 PM

Could it be that the "this" in "how do I live with this" referrs not to sexual orientation but the bigotry of society, fueled by religious dogma?

Sure it could be. I am awaiting from the APA rep to get back to me on all my points.

Hey, did you read my PM? You didn't find the joke funny?

steveksux

08-11-2006, 11:01 PM

"Their primary concerns include why them"; how do I live with this"

I thought there wasn't anything abnormal about it? Isn't that what they and non-homosexual liberals want the population to believe?Its pretty obvious from that post that they are worried about how others are going to take the news. That's only an indication of how its looked down on by many in society. Has nothing to do with whether or not it really is abnormal. Surprised you didn't see that. Or is it you simply don't want to see that? Or pretending not to see?

Since you a memeber of the APA, what about pedophilia, necrophilia and a host of other abnormal mental conditions? Are they not abnormal as well?
Should it be accepted by society since they were "born that way"?You're usually better than this, neo. There certainly are elements of society that need protection from sexual predators. They are not capable of giving informed consent to have sex. Children. Dead people. The mentally handicapped. Those are totally different situations compared to two consenting competent adults of the same sex who are attracted to each other.

Randy

dittohead not!

08-11-2006, 11:05 PM

What about senior citizens, those of us past the child bearing years? Should we be allowed to marry, knowing that no children will come of the union? I mean, if sex is for the purpose of procreation, maybe we all should just abstain after the age of 45 or so, what do you think?

steveksux

08-11-2006, 11:05 PM

What facts, the facts I just stated?

So, I will then allow myself to think that your opinion is that to be gay or to actually act on those thoughts, isn't a choice in your mind..... SCARY!

I also think, those who believe that homosexuality is genetic and believe in evolution are actually advocating the destruction of them.IF you thought, you wouldn't think that.

Randy

JoeR

08-11-2006, 11:34 PM

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]what about all the other mental diseases that people have that doesn't result in the harm of anyone?

Have any examples?

DRMIZER

08-12-2006, 12:21 AM

Could it be that the "this" in "how do I live with this" referrs not to sexual orientation but the bigotry of society, fueled by religious dogma?Precisely! I should have framed it that way. Thanks.

As for responding to the other religious conclusions made in this thread, I stated my points in the opening of this thread. It really isn't possible or beneficial to discuss biological - psycho/social concepts using the bible as a valid reference. Therefore I won't.

dittohead not!

08-12-2006, 01:12 AM

Dutch

08-12-2006, 02:38 AM

[QUOTE]What about the heterosexual?

His thesis is if no choice was involved with any of these sexual proclivities, would society view them differently?

The difference between the homosexual and the rest you listed is that THEY HARM NO ONE.

Are you familiar with the "down low" phenomenon?

JoeR

08-12-2006, 02:44 AM

I think it's pretty clear at this point that pedophilia is beyond choice. It is a compulsion. That doesn't mean it isn't something that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. A sociopath is born that way too, but you don't stop putting them away either. I'm not very familiar with beastiality or necrophilia, but I suspect a similar pathology is in place - I can't imagine anyone just up and choosing to diddle the dead or play with their pooch, but for all I know I could be way off.

I am familiar with the downlow thing. The danger is the promiscuous activity, not a homosexual orientation or even homosexual behavior itself. I don't condone reckless promiscuity whatever parts your prefer to play with.

burntgorilla

08-12-2006, 11:53 AM

If homosexuality is completely due to environment and something that can be consciously changed, could someone please explain this article to me?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn9413.html

If it's all in the "nuture" of "nature vs. nuture", then how come there is statistical evidence showing that you're more likely to be gay if you have older brothers? I posted this question earlier on, but it was ignored, presumably because it didn't suit. Since neo is on something of a comedy drive at the minute, there's the empirical evidence. And by the way, I know that it says "may" in the headline. You don't need to point it out. An explanation of the article is all I need.

neo of the mind

08-12-2006, 12:39 PM

Precisely! I should have framed it that way. Thanks.

As for responding to the other religious conclusions made in this thread, I stated my points in the opening of this thread. It really isn't possible or beneficial to discuss biological - psycho/social concepts using the bible as a valid reference. Therefore I won't.

LOL. You mean you can't. The questions I raised have nothing to do with religion, period. I asked you point blank questions about whether homosexuality was abnormal. I asked you if pedophillia and necrophillia was abnormal and then asked what the difference was psycologically.

The answer so far, not from you, as been they don't "hurt" others. Well that doesn't answer my question.

So until somebody convinces me otherwise, if the consensus by some is that homosexuals are born that way, then it goes as well for all the other abnormal behaviours, such as pedophilia and necrophilia and they should be treated the same way.

neo of the mind

08-12-2006, 12:41 PM

Has it ocurred to anyone else that the title of this thread has nothing to do with homosexuality? "The notion of curing sexuality- no cure in sight" doesn't say anything about sexual orientation one way or the other. We medically "cure" sexuality of dogs and cats all the time, why not humans?

Any volunteers? :D

The topic is about whether homosexuality can be cured and even if it's something deemed that should be cured. Unless we all got it wrong.

"I take exception to anyone, including Christians, who claim that homosexuals have been "healed" of their sexual orientation."

Are you looking at a different thread?

neo of the mind

08-12-2006, 12:47 PM

burntgorilla

08-12-2006, 01:10 PM

LOL. You mean you can't. The questions I raised have nothing to do with religion, period. I asked you point blank questions about whether homosexuality was abnormal. I asked you if pedophillia and necrophillia was abnormal and then asked what the difference was psycologically.

The answer so far, not from you, as been they don't "hurt" others. Well that doesn't answer my question.

So until somebody convinces me otherwise, if the consensus by some is that homosexuals are born that way, then it goes as well for all the other abnormal behaviours, such as pedophilia and necrophilia and they should be treated the same way.

Surely heterosexuality is psychologically similar? It is much more common, of course, but heterosexuality, homosexuality, necrophilia, paedophilia etc are all determiners of who or what you are attracted to.

JoeR

08-13-2006, 12:08 AM

and my whole point is, which I have addressed numerous ways, is the trend to say that homosexuallity is not abnormal.

Obviously a characteristic that makes up a small percentage of the populace is not the norm. The term abnormal however is loaded with a negative conotation. The sole judge of whether or not a behavior is deviant, especially to the extent that such behavior is treated diferently by the law, should be it's harmful effects.

One of the criteria of deviant behaviour is how society views it. There has been a big push the last 10 years or so, to CHANGE scociety's view on it.

Not sure what your point here is. Society's view should change when it is ignorant.

dittohead not!

08-13-2006, 12:25 AM

The topic is about whether homosexuality can be cured and even if it's something deemed that should be cured. Unless we all got it wrong.

"I take exception to anyone, including Christians, who claim that homosexuals have been "healed" of their sexual orientation."

Are you looking at a different thread?

I'm looking at this thread. The title doesn't say anything about homosexuality.

neo of the mind

08-13-2006, 12:27 AM

Obviously a characteristic that makes up a small percentage of the populace is not the norm. The term abnormal however is loaded with a negative conotation. The sole judge of whether or not a behavior is deviant, especially to the extent that such behavior is treated diferently by the law, should be it's harmful effects.

Not sure what your point here is. Society's view should change when it is ignorant.

It is not ignorant to think that procreation, which is the main purpose of our sexual organs, is between men and women and not between men and men or women and women. Can you argue from an evolutionary standpoint that homosexuality makes sense? I'd love to hear that.

neo of the mind

08-13-2006, 12:29 AM

I'm looking at this thread. The title doesn't say anything about homosexuality.

It's not in the title...so what, it's the topic that the original poster brought up.

dittohead not!

08-13-2006, 12:31 AM

It's not in the title...so what, it's the topic that the original poster brought up.

The topic was curing sexuality. I said we cure sexuality in dogs and cats all the time.

It's a joke, but is not so funny if it has to be explained.

Democritus

08-13-2006, 12:56 AM

It is not ignorant to think that procreation, which is the main purpose of our sexual organs, is between men and women and not between men and men or women and women. Can you argue from an evolutionary standpoint that homosexuality makes sense? I'd love to hear that.

Of course not. From an evolutionary standpoint it's a useless and self destroying adaptation. However I can argue that it happens anyway, both in humans and animals. Is it an aberration? Probably. But it isn't a harmful one so why does it matter?

The best analogy for homosexuality is left-handedness. The percentages are about the same and it serves no evolutionary purpose to be left-handed. In fact for many years children were forced to learn to use their right hand even though it was unnatural for them. It can be overcome with enough determined effort, but for left-handed people being right-handed will never be 'natural' to them. There are also varrying degrees of ambidexterity which equate rather nicely to the varrying degrees of bisexuality, but I digress.

JoeR

08-13-2006, 01:03 AM

It is not ignorant to think that procreation, which is the main purpose of our sexual organs, is between men and women and not between men and men or women and women.

I'm not sure if this is a straw man or a red herring. Where did I say that procreation could occur in male/male or female/female relationships?

Can you argue from an evolutionary standpoint that homosexuality makes sense? I'd love to hear that.

Here's an interesting little article discussing it, I'm sure theres much more out there.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-06/960498851.Ev.r.html

Clearly, if homosexuality appears simply as a result of expanding courtship behaviors, then the fitness aspect is moot - the fitness gains of courtship for the population far outweigh the loss of a small percentage of individuals from the breeding pool. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that homosexuality is an independent trait, and examine it evolutionarily. As demonstrated above, homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom, so it must have either a positive or neutral effect on fitness. On the other hand, the breeding pressure against homosexuality would suggest that it only enhances fitness when present in small portions of the population, i.e. if the precentage of strictly homosexual individuals is high enough to lower the birthrate below the deathrate, the population will eventually die off. Furthermore, many individuals that engage in homosexual activities are not exclusive, and still engage in sufficient hetersexuality to produce offspring (as is evident within our own species), such that it cannot be considered a truly sterilizing trait.

One of the major arguments regarding the fitness of homosexuality, at least in vertebrates, seem to revolve around child rearing. Caring for offspring is very expensive per individual caregiver, while yielding tremendous evolutionary benefits to the population, by directly enhancing the fitness of the next generation. Because the cost to the individual is so great, many populations have evolved ways of sharing the costs of raising the offspring, such that the benefits to the population are equalized by general costs to the population. In several social mammals, this is done through wet-nursing by non-pregnant females of related newborn, sometimes even requiring the forced abortion of the litters of subdominant females to produce more wet-nurses (seen in some Wolves). Likewise, removing a portion of the population from breeding relieves the breeders of some of these costs either directly by assisting with child rearing, or indirectly by taking over other costly activities (like food collection) so that t he parents can spend more resources on their progeny.

There is also evidence of homosexual activities playing a role in maintaining dominance heirarchies, reinforcing familiarity, and playing other roles in organizing and maintaining the societies of some of the more social animals. While the absolute evolutionary value of homosexuality varies greatly between species, it is certainly common enough to suggest a contribution to fitness, even if not directly measurable.

steveksux

08-13-2006, 08:34 PM

Can Metrosexuality be cured?

Randy

dittohead not!

08-13-2006, 08:42 PM

Can Metrosexuality be cured?

Randy

Metrosexuality is an abomination before God and the fashion cops! It must be cured, or all is lost!

Soc.Dem.

08-13-2006, 08:43 PM

steveksux

08-13-2006, 08:48 PM

It is not ignorant to think that procreation, which is the main purpose of our sexual organs, is between men and women and not between men and men or women and women. Can you argue from an evolutionary standpoint that homosexuality makes sense? I'd love to hear that.The fact that homosexuality has persisted for millions of years proves it is evolutionarily useful in some manner. Even more so considering it precludes passing on a genetic component by its very nature. Unless there is a significant non-genetic component to it. Which the studies showing that people with older brothers are more likely gay alludes to as well. Stuff like that makes it hard to believe the genetics are the only, or even the determining factor.

Randy

Soc.Dem.

08-13-2006, 08:49 PM

LOL. You mean you can't. The questions I raised have nothing to do with religion, period. I asked you point blank questions about whether homosexuality was abnormal. I asked you if pedophillia and necrophillia was abnormal and then asked what the difference was psycologically.

The answer so far, not from you, as been they don't "hurt" others. Well that doesn't answer my question.

So until somebody convinces me otherwise, if the consensus by some is that homosexuals are born that way, then it goes as well for all the other abnormal behaviours, such as pedophilia and necrophilia and they should be treated the same way.

Even though pedophilia and necrophilia may be as involuntary as homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) that does not mean that they automatically should be treated the same. They must be treated based on how they impact individuals and society. Does these behaviour violate the rights of anyone?

By the way, if you think that homosexuality can be cured, then that must go for pedophilia as well. Now would you give your child over to the care of a baby sitter or a kindergarten teacher who was a "cured pedophile"?

DRMIZER

08-13-2006, 09:34 PM

By the way, if you think that homosexuality can be cured, then that must go for pedophilia as well. Now would you give your child over to the care of a baby sitter or a kindergarten teacher who was a "cured pedophile"?This is a rethorical question, of course. But your question uncovers the nonsense regarding curing homosexuality.

JoeR

08-13-2006, 10:23 PM

The fact that homosexuality has persisted for millions of years proves it is evolutionarily useful in some manner.

Isn't it also possible that it is an accidental development, not useful but not harmful either?

steveksux

08-13-2006, 10:39 PM

Isn't it also possible that it is an accidental development, nott useful but not harmful either?Certainly, thanks for correcting my oversight.

Randy

JoeR

08-13-2006, 10:42 PM

Metrosexuality is an abomination before God and the fashion cops!

I thought metrosexuals were the fasion cops?

neo of the mind

08-13-2006, 11:30 PM

The fact that homosexuality has persisted for millions of years proves it is evolutionarily useful in some manner. Even more so considering it precludes passing on a genetic component by its very nature. Unless there is a significant non-genetic component to it. Which the studies showing that people with older brothers are more likely gay alludes to as well. Stuff like that makes it hard to believe the genetics are the only, or even the determining factor.

Randy

The older brother thing could be explained that the younger brothers are used for experimentation? The older brothers being at an age were the behaviour doesn't affect them, but the behaviour towards the younger brother does affect them.

Ther is a much higher case of sexual abuse in connection to gay and lesbians in their youger ages which could be they contributing factor.

neo of the mind

08-13-2006, 11:36 PM

Even though pedophilia and necrophilia may be as involuntary as homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) that does not mean that they automatically should be treated the same. They must be treated based on how they impact individuals and society. Does these behaviour violate the rights of anyone?

By the way, if you think that homosexuality can be cured, then that must go for pedophilia as well. Now would you give your child over to the care of a baby sitter or a kindergarten teacher who was a "cured pedophile"?

Like what others have said, the homosexual would not molest my child where a pedophile would.

Would I allow my child to be driven home from the mall by a "cured" drunk with a history of drunk driving? No.

This says nothing to the fact that homosexuality, like pedophilia is abnormal.

dittohead not!

08-14-2006, 12:08 AM

Like what others have said, the homosexual would not molest my child where a pedophile would.

Would I allow my child to be driven home from the mall by a "cured" drunk with a history of drunk driving? No.

This says nothing to the fact that homosexuality, like pedophilia is abnormal.

That, of course, depends on your definition of "abnormal."

Is being 6'8" abnormal? How about being left handed?

Or is "unusual" a better term for all of the above?

As for the alcoholic, my understanding is that they are never really cured either. The only treatment for alcoholism is abstention from alcohol. I suppose a homosexual could be treated by abstention from sex, but what would the point be?

Democritus

08-14-2006, 12:15 AM

neo of the mind

08-14-2006, 12:34 AM

That, of course, depends on your definition of "abnormal."

Is being 6'8" abnormal? How about being left handed?

Or is "unusual" a better term for all of the above?

As for the alcoholic, my understanding is that they are never really cured either. The only treatment for alcoholism is abstention from alcohol. I suppose a homosexual could be treated by abstention from sex, but what would the point be?

Well, I consider them both behaviours, but unlike the homosexual, there is no alternative for an alcoholic.

JoeR

08-14-2006, 02:34 AM

There is a higher case of sexual abuse in gay and lesbian men. However the reporting rates may also be higher there. With so many sexual abuses going unreported the correlations are hard to prove accurately.

Theres also another aspect to this - perhaps the abuse occurs because of homosexual tendances expressed as a young child, and not the other way around. Others might conciously or unconciously pick up on that and assault it.

burntgorilla

08-14-2006, 07:55 AM

The older brother thing could be explained that the younger brothers are used for experimentation? The older brothers being at an age were the behaviour doesn't affect them, but the behaviour towards the younger brother does affect them.

Ther is a much higher case of sexual abuse in connection to gay and lesbians in their youger ages which could be they contributing factor.

*sigh* If you'd actually read the article, what happens after birth is irrelevant. The youngest child could go and live on the other side of the world, and never so much as speak to his brothers. Even if his parents separated, and he lived with his dad while the rest lived somewhere else, he would still be more likely to be gay. Sexual abuse could well be a factor for some people, but in this study it's not.

Like what others have said, the homosexual would not molest my child where a pedophile would.

Would I allow my child to be driven home from the mall by a "cured" drunk with a history of drunk driving? No.

This says nothing to the fact that homosexuality, like pedophilia is abnormal.

It does show how much faith you put in people who claim to be "cured", though.

DRMIZER

08-14-2006, 08:54 AM

Ther is a much higher case of sexual abuse in connection to gay and lesbians in their youger ages which could be they contributing factor.And where did you get this info?

Democritus

08-14-2006, 11:40 AM

Theres also another aspect to this - perhaps the abuse occurs because of homosexual tendances expressed as a young child, and not the other way around. Others might conciously or unconciously pick up on that and assault it.

That's also possible. There is no clear causal relationship between the two. There is a fairly probable correlation but that does NOT imply causation.

heel31ok

08-24-2006, 10:43 AM

steveksux

08-24-2006, 10:48 AM

Homosexuality clearly cannot be cured. If something as disgusting as having sex with another man won't dissuade you from being homosexual, nothing will.

Randy

DRMIZER

08-24-2006, 11:23 AM

If a bisexual lives their whole life as a heterosexual then they are not bisexual at all, same with a homosexual.A heterosexual who never has sex is not heterosexual.No, if one does not act out on their orientation it does not change their orientation. They are what they are. We are what we are.

The Big Bog

08-24-2006, 11:26 AM

If a bisexual lives their whole life as a heterosexual then they are not bisexual at all, same with a homosexual.A heterosexual who never has sex is not heterosexual.

Is that the way it works? Hmm. Time to go buy some hair dye and start my new life as a blonde!

JoeR

08-24-2006, 02:45 PM

A heterosexual who never has sex is not heterosexual.

They are what then, asexual? :lol:

heel31ok

08-25-2006, 09:30 AM

They are what then, asexual? :lol:

not sexual at all if they do not have sex.

heel31ok

08-25-2006, 09:36 AM

No, if one does not act out on their orientation it does not change their orientation. They are what they are. We are what we are.

Yes, if a person does not have sex with another of same gender they are not homosexual.If I love baseball but do not play then I am not a baseball player.

DRMIZER

08-25-2006, 09:43 AM

Yes, if a person does not have sex with another of same gender they are not homosexual.If I love baseball but do not play then I am not a baseball player.Equating sexual orientation with playing baseball is a new one. I don't think playing sports is the same as an orientation.

Dangerrmouse

08-25-2006, 09:58 AM

Yes, if a person does not have sex with another of same gender they are not homosexual.If I love baseball but do not play then I am not a baseball player.

If this were so, then the Anglican community would have been spared a lot of grief over the admission of homosexuals to the priesthood this past few years..

The Big Bog

08-25-2006, 11:23 AM

Yes, if a person does not have sex with another of same gender they are not homosexual.
Are we a bit definitionally challenged today?

What do you call someone who hangs out in GAY BARS, who DESIRES someone of the SAME SEX, who spends six hours each day watching GAY PORN and masturbating to it ... but doesn't have sex?

What is the term you would use to describe such a person?

If I love baseball but do not play then I am not a baseball player.
"Baseball player" is to "Sexually Active Homosexual"

AS

"Baseball lover" is to ___________?

steveksux

08-25-2006, 12:20 PM

The Big Bog

08-25-2006, 12:39 PM

I smell a fishy definition of a homosexual based on whether they are having sex just so they can form a tortured definition of "cured" homosexuals simply because they stop having sex.

I guess that means all those people that take the chastity pledge are cured heterosexuals by that definition.

Randy

Actually, I kind of like this approach to "curing" things now that I think about it. If I ever get diabetes, I'll just ignore it. Don't admit that you have something and voila! ... you're cured! Like magic.

Soc.Dem.

08-26-2006, 11:34 AM

not sexual at all if they do not have sex.

Yes, they are. A person who never have had sex still has sexual desires and attractions.

steveksux

08-26-2006, 02:25 PM

Sort of like an alcoholic that doesn't drink is cured. I see. :rolleyes:

Randy

Dangerrmouse

08-26-2006, 03:48 PM

Is a Catholic who never darkens the doorway of a church still a Catholic? (substitute religion of choice)

JoeR

08-26-2006, 04:04 PM

Isn't that most Catholics? :D

dittohead not!

08-27-2006, 01:29 AM

Kong

09-06-2006, 04:25 AM

I don't care.

heel31ok

09-11-2006, 11:29 AM

Sexuality isn't like religion, or like alcoholism, or anything else. It's a natural attraction that we have, most of us to the opposite sex. It can't be denied, and is still there whether we have acted on it or not. A heterosexual is a heterosexual not because he did or did not have sex with the opposite sex, but because of the attraction that is there and can't be denied. I believe the same can be said about a homosexual, but, having no personal experience, I can only assume that the attraction is the same.

This is true but if one I do not say a cure is making the feelings go away but being able to not act on them by personal self control or discipline. A person who does not want to be involved in this lifestyle has that choice. And it is not wrong to deny yourself if that is what you choose. A naturalattraction in a person does not automatically make that attraction right or good. We all have attractions, appetites or whatever that are not all good or good for us.Just because a person is born with desires does not make those desires right.Being born with something does not validate it.
Now if by "denied" you mean cannot pretend they do not exist then I agree , but if you mean it is a force that is beyond the control of a persons will then I would totally disagree.The feelings can be there but a person does not have to act on them.curing homosexuality or alcoholism or whatever is stopping the behavior plain and simple.

Ethos

09-11-2006, 12:43 PM

Now if by "denied" you mean cannot pretend they do not exist then I agree , but if you mean it is a force that is beyond the control of a persons will then I would totally disagree.The feelings can be there but a person does not have to act on them.curing homosexuality or alcoholism or whatever is stopping the behavior plain and simple.

This is factually incorrect. Behavior is only a symptom and ending those actions does not "cure" a larger process. In the case of an alcoholic, he may no longer drink, but the addiction is still present. There is nothing plain nor simple in treating alcoholism.

In the case of sexual orientation the analogy breaks down. Homosexuality is about more than attraction. There are components of personality, physical attributes, and thought processes involved in this designation. To claim one may be "cured" of their sexual orientation through sexual abstinence is (again) factually incorrect and a gross oversimplification of biological and psychological dynamics.

Ethos

dittohead not!

09-11-2006, 01:22 PM

This is true but if one I do not say a cure is making the feelings go away but being able to not act on them by personal self control or discipline. A person who does not want to be involved in this lifestyle has that choice. And it is not wrong to deny yourself if that is what you choose. A naturalattraction in a person does not automatically make that attraction right or good. We all have attractions, appetites or whatever that are not all good or good for us.Just because a person is born with desires does not make those desires right.Being born with something does not validate it.
Now if by "denied" you mean cannot pretend they do not exist then I agree , but if you mean it is a force that is beyond the control of a persons will then I would totally disagree.The feelings can be there but a person does not have to act on them.curing homosexuality or alcoholism or whatever is stopping the behavior plain and simple.

Yes, a homosexual can choose to be celibate, just as a heterosexual can choose to be celibate.

And, you're right that it is not necessarily right or good to act on our physical attractions. We have a choice to act or not to act, and acting on an inappropriate attraction can bring a lot of personal problems, like divorce, for example as a consequence of extra marital affairs.

And I think we agree that it is not possible for a person to change or deny his/her physical attractions, only to exercise the choice of acting or not acting on those attractions.

Now for the 64 dollar question: If two adults are sexually attracted to each other, if there are no prior promises or committments involved, ie, marriage to someone else, how are those two adults hurting anyone else by acting on their desires? The only answer I can think of to that question is that they cause a lot of problems if they have a child that they're not ready and willing to raise. That answer doesn't apply to homosexual couples, does it?

Democritus

09-11-2006, 01:22 PM

This is true but if one I do not say a cure is making the feelings go away but being able to not act on them by personal self control or discipline. A person who does not want to be involved in this lifestyle has that choice. And it is not wrong to deny yourself if that is what you choose. A naturalattraction in a person does not automatically make that attraction right or good. We all have attractions, appetites or whatever that are not all good or good for us.Just because a person is born with desires does not make those desires right.Being born with something does not validate it.
Now if by "denied" you mean cannot pretend they do not exist then I agree , but if you mean it is a force that is beyond the control of a persons will then I would totally disagree.The feelings can be there but a person does not have to act on them.curing homosexuality or alcoholism or whatever is stopping the behavior plain and simple.

In a sense you're right. A person can choose to deny themselves sexual gratification. A person can choose to deny their own attractions. A person is ultimately responsible for his or her actions.

Of course, making those choices either voluntarily or when forced to by society causes vastly increased rates of depression and often suicide. Can you even imagine the stress it puts ons someone's mind to deny something so inherrant to them as their own sexuality?

We have treatment programs for alcohlism and addiction because they harm society. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone so why should it need to be repressed?

neo of the mind

09-11-2006, 01:54 PM

We have treatment programs for alcohlism and addiction because they harm society. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone so why should it need to be repressed?

AIDS for one.

brainpan

09-11-2006, 03:20 PM

AIDS for one.But transmission of STD's is a significant risk that accompanies heterosexual activity as well. I suspect you are just using AIDS as an excuse to forcefully promote your sense of morality upon people who do not wish it. What is the rate of HIV infection among female homosexuals?

steveksux

09-11-2006, 03:30 PM

The Big Bog

09-11-2006, 04:09 PM

AIDS for one.

Many of the women in my family have had lupus. Would you advise us to stop having sex as well (so as not to keep passing along the gene)?

neo of the mind

09-11-2006, 04:39 PM

But transmission of STD's is a significant risk that accompanies heterosexual activity as well. I suspect you are just using AIDS as an excuse to forcefully promote your sense of morality upon people who do not wish it. What is the rate of HIV infection among female homosexuals?

You suspect wrong. I am looking at the plain fact that homosexuality, promiscuousness(see Africa) and intravenous drug use are the overwhelming cause of the spread of AIDS and the continued new infections. The plain fact that I am stating is that actions by individuals and "consenting adults" often times affects others and in the case of AIDS, it affects a lot of people directly and indirectly.

dittohead not!

09-11-2006, 04:51 PM

Many of the women in my family have had lupus. Would you advise us to stop having sex as well (so as not to keep passing along the gene)?

You could try using this method:
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49392
It would be expensive, but might be worth it.

dittohead not!

09-11-2006, 04:56 PM

You suspect wrong. I am looking at the plain fact that homosexuality, promiscuousness(see Africa) and intravenous drug use are the overwhelming cause of the spread of AIDS and the continued new infections. The plain fact that I am stating is that actions by individuals and "consenting adults" often times affects others and in the case of AIDS, it affects a lot of people directly and indirectly.

Promiscuity and IV drug use are indeed the reasons for the spread of AIDS. There is no reason why homosexuals who are in a monogamous relationship should be at risk for contracting that horrible disease. Perhaps that's the best argument for supporting homosexual marriage, encouraging a monogamous relationship and discouraging behavior that spreads STDs.

brainpan

09-11-2006, 06:02 PM

You suspect wrong.I seriously doubt it. Every position you take on social and scientific issues exactly mirror the religious dogma common in the deep south.
I am looking at the plain fact that homosexualityQuite simply, you aren't. You didn't bother to address the question of HIV transmission by way of lesbian sex.

towski

09-11-2006, 06:47 PM

You suspect wrong. I am looking at the plain fact that homosexuality, promiscuousness(see Africa) and intravenous drug use are the overwhelming cause of the spread of AIDS and the continued new infections. The plain fact that I am stating is that actions by individuals and "consenting adults" often times affects others and in the case of AIDS, it affects a lot of people directly and indirectly.

Here is where I think you are missing the point, Neo. The act of homosexual sex itself has nothing more to do with the spread of AIDS than does the act of heterosexual sex. Both are equally adept at spreading HIV. It is the promiscuity, or lack of use of condoms, that is to blame, not the fact that it is performed by homosexuals.

DRMIZER

09-11-2006, 08:09 PM

AIDS for one.STD's, including AIDS is in both camps and has nothing to do specifically with hetro or homo relations. The bottom line is that we have come to a point in this country where we want to regulate morality. . . . .even through government intervention. Are we turning into a theocratic government?

Ethos

09-11-2006, 08:28 PM

STD's, including AIDS is in both camps and has nothing to do specifically with hetro or homo relations. The bottom line is that we have come to a point in this country where we want to regulate morality. . . . .even through government intervention. Are we turning into a theocratic government?

It may seem this way, but the fact is rather the reverse. Regulation of morality has a very long history in America, certainly extending to far before the federal government itself was established. Literally thousands of federal, state, and local laws have been marginalized, ignored, overturned, or removed since the 1700's.

Ethos

DRMIZER

09-11-2006, 09:43 PM

It may seem this way, but the fact is rather the reverse. Regulation of morality has a very long history in America, certainly extending to far before the federal government itself was established. Literally thousands of federal, state, and local laws have been marginalized, ignored, overturned, or removed since the 1700's.

EthosI understand where we have been historically. I am more concerned at where religion wants to take us now. Religious dogma should attempt to regulate their own, not the nation as a whole, particularly when its an activity between 2 consenting adults engaging in a private sexual activity.

Cedars

09-11-2006, 09:58 PM

Interesting article from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality: http://www.narth.com/docs/essentialist.html

Ethos

09-11-2006, 10:22 PM

I understand where we have been historically. I am more concerned at where religion wants to take us now. Religious dogma should attempt to regulate their own, not the nation as a whole, particularly when its an activity between 2 consenting adults engaging in a private sexual activity.

Basically I agree. My point is that current fundamentalist hostilities are less a resurgence of past moral attitudes as they are a general backlash to progressively liberal values. That there is a tremendous media presence which has become more organized and focused to reflect this backlash does not indicate a successful campaign overall. National statistics seem to show the country continues to trend liberal in matters of public morality.

Ethos

Ethos

09-11-2006, 10:26 PM

Interesting article from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality: http://www.narth.com/docs/essentialist.html

At the very least this article's information is horribly out of date.

Ethos

DRMIZER

09-11-2006, 10:27 PM

"Welcome to NARTH -- a non-profit, educational organization dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality." This pretty much indicates their slant on the subject. . . .They have an agenda. The APA is not associated with this group although members of NARTH may be members of the APA, if qualified.

Cedars

09-11-2006, 10:56 PM

Is it "horribly" outdated? The bottom of the page indicates "Last Updated: 20 April 2006"

I did indicate that NARTH is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Obviously, the word "therapy" should indicate immediately they are treating homosexuality as a disorder. No surprises there.

With regard to the APA (American Psychological Association), NARTH states:

NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that "biological, psychological and social factors" shape sexual identity at an early age for most people.

But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences--and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.

There is no such thing as a "gay gene" and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is simply genetic. However, biological influences may indeed influence some people toward homosexuality; recent studies point to prenatal-hormonal influences, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain; also, there may be genetic factors in some people -- both of which would affect gender identity, and therefore sexual orientation. But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable.

Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies.

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

Ethos

09-11-2006, 11:21 PM

Is it "horribly" outdated? The bottom of the page indicates "Last Updated: 20 April 2006"

The article itself draws from citations that range from 3 to 10 years in age. While a case can easily be made concerning the biased nature of the website itself, I find it unnecessary when presented with such flimsy research and lack of counter-analysis. The assertions presented ignores previously obtained scientific information, and as "unsupported" as the author may feel pre-2000 scientific data might be, a more thorough analysis should be presented. There have been many studies done since that are also not addressed.

Additionally I should point out that while there may be recorded incidents of individuals "modifying" their sexuality, there are a great deal more incidents of failures to "reform". One cannot base a conclusion on this type of anecdotal evidence alone without relying on significantly biased assumptions to fill in knowledge gaps.

Ethos

Cedars

09-11-2006, 11:36 PM

The article itself draws from citations that range from 3 to 10 years in age. While a case can easily be made concerning the biased nature of the website itself, I find it unnecessary when presented with such flimsy research and lack of counter-analysis. The assertions presented ignores previously obtained scientific information, and as "unsupported" as the author may feel pre-2000 scientific data might be, a more thorough analysis should be presented. There have been many studies done since that are also not addressed.

Additionally I should point out that while there may be recorded incidents of individuals "modifying" their sexuality, there are a great deal more incidents of failures to "reform". One cannot base a conclusion on this type of anecdotal evidence alone without relying on significantly biased assumptions to fill in knowledge gaps.

Ethos
Does any article or "finding" ever consider ALL information, ALL criteria? I think not. Man is not infallible. Every institution and every scientist has their own agenda -- that includes NARTH and APA.

Ethos

09-11-2006, 11:39 PM

Does any article or "finding" ever consider ALL information, ALL criteria? I think not. Man is not infallible. Every institution and every scientist has their own agenda -- that includes NARTH and APA.

All? No. I would have appreciated at least some review of available data.

Every institution does have an agenda, some more so than others.

Ethos

Cedars

09-11-2006, 11:48 PM

All? No. I would have appreciated at least some review of available data.

Every institution does have an agenda, some more so than others.

Ethos
It seems to me that scientists/therapists/institutions only provide data that shore up their own "findings." This is not necessarily done on purpose, but even scientists have tunnel vision.

DRMIZER

09-12-2006, 08:55 AM

It seems to me that scientists/therapists/institutions only provide data that shore up their own "findings." This is not necessarily done on purpose, but even scientists have tunnel vision.Ethical and clinical studies do have agenda. They want to prove or disprove a theory construct. A study can and almost always begins with a particular bias to "prove" a theory. Otherwise there would not be a need to do the study. However results may reveal many variations of the initial study. Valid studies have NEVER found that homosexuality can be effectively modified or changed. Attempting to change one's sexual orientation most likely will result in inner conflict, insecurity and self-doubt and eventually lead to clinical depression. Those patients who give into or "agree" to comply with a transition usually become celebate but remain true to their orientation.

heel31ok

09-12-2006, 11:31 AM

This is factually incorrect. Behavior is only a symptom and ending those actions does not "cure" a larger process. In the case of an alcoholic, he may no longer drink, but the addiction is still present. There is nothing plain nor simple in treating alcoholism.

In the case of sexual orientation the analogy breaks down. Homosexuality is about more than attraction. There are components of personality, physical attributes, and thought processes involved in this designation. To claim one may be "cured" of their sexual orientation through sexual abstinence is (again) factually incorrect and a gross oversimplification of biological and psychological dynamics.

Ethos

The claim of a cure comes from the individual who chooses to not partake in his own desires , orientation or whatever. It does not matter how many components comprise this orientation it is the individuals choice.Again,the mere presence of the so called biological and psycological dynamics do not make these components automatically right.
As far as the breakdown of the analogy with say alcoholism there is no breakdown because the same components of personality , physical attributes and thought processes exist in both cases.
the "cure" is to change ones own behavior.The cure for an alcoholic is to not drink,plain and simple.it does not matter if they want to drink as long as they do not.The cure for a homosexual is to not engage in it.I think the big problem here is the concept of what cure means.cure to me is not total absence of the desires , it is the taking control of those desires and ruling over them instead of being ruled by them. My comments are not factually incorrect as much as philosophically incorrect. The fact is we can control ourselves
the question is , should we?

heel31ok

09-12-2006, 11:46 AM

In a sense you're right. A person can choose to deny themselves sexual gratification. A person can choose to deny their own attractions. A person is ultimately responsible for his or her actions.

Of course, making those choices either voluntarily or when forced to by society causes vastly increased rates of depression and often suicide. Can you even imagine the stress it puts ons someone's mind to deny something so inherrant to them as their own sexuality?

We have treatment programs for alcohlism and addiction because they harm society. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone so why should it need to be repressed?

so now the question changes from, can homosexuality be cured,to, does it need to be cured? That all depends on your view of homosexuality.

DRMIZER

09-12-2006, 01:40 PM

"Cured" implies a need to reform or sickness, neither of which I subscribe to. BTW I have been married to the same WOMAN 40 years!

neo of the mind

09-12-2006, 02:36 PM

towski

09-12-2006, 02:47 PM

FlyingGuineapig

09-12-2006, 02:48 PM

If homosexuality/lesbianism were to have been genetically pre-dominate two thousand years ago, then the human species would have died off or people would have had to go against their natural orientation so that the human species would continue.

Yep, society has pressured homosexuals to act hetro, reproduce, and pass on the genes. Karl Rove is acually a prime example (seriously) of the offspring of a homosexual male.

Louis Rove left his family during the 1969 Christmas holidays and moved to Los Angeles where he eventually "came out." According to Rove's father's best friend, an openly gay man named Joseph Koons, "Louie didn't hide the fact that he was gay. But he didn't play it up either." The Architect describes Louis Rove as a shy man, encumbered by his three hundred pound figure. To encourage Rove to socialize, Joseph Koons, invited him to join a retired gay men's group called the "Old Farts Club," jokingly referred to among the men as the "Rainbow Casket."

neo of the mind

09-12-2006, 02:53 PM

Who said it was predominant? I don't think anyone has argued that?

I said "If".

brainpan

09-12-2006, 03:56 PM

I said "If".How about we fast forward to the part where you explain your point, assuming you have one?

neo of the mind

09-12-2006, 04:36 PM

*sign* Must I hold your hand for every discussion? My point is to get a dialogue on my question from my rhetorical statement.

Let me put it another way.

Premises:
1.Homosexuality is genetic.

2.Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits. Natural selection works on the whole individual, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the offspring, with the result that favorable, heritable traits become more common in the next generation.

3.If this gene were dominant in the human species, then it would be contrary to natural selection as the species would not reproduce at some point.

Question #1, Why hasn't natural selection eliminated this gene?
Question #2, If this gene is not a favorable trait per natural selection, why is it considered as being something that should not be corrected per DRMIZER?
Question #3, If this gene is passed on then how, if not for an individual that has it, did not change their inclination in order to reproduce.
Question #4, Could it be that this "gene" is closer to say the alcoholism "gene" and therefore, environment plays the major part in orientation?

steveksux

09-12-2006, 06:12 PM

If homosexuality/lesbianism were to have been genetically pre-dominate two thousand years ago, then the human species would have died off or people would have had to go against their natural orientation so that the human species would continue.

What say ye, would have happened?Same thing that happened to the Sickle Cell gene, which results in death when both parents pass the gene on to their kids, and causes problems even when only one copy of the gene is there, yet still managed to persist in the genome all these generations.

Randy

steveksux

09-12-2006, 06:13 PM

*sign* Must I hold your hand for every discussion? That's sounding kind of gay.... Have YOU been cured?? ;) :D

Randy

ScummyD

09-12-2006, 06:18 PM

So what if homosexuality is genetic??? Does that mean we must accept it merely because a person is born a homosexual?

I hear homophiles routinely argue that people are born homosexual, as if that in and of itself dictates that we must accept homosexuality as normal.

While homosexuality should no be confused with other sexual orientations, surely if a person can be born attracted to the same sex a person can be born attracted to children.

The point being that a person's birth does not bestow legitimacy on their future behavior.

brainpan

09-12-2006, 06:23 PM

That's sounding kind of gay.... Have YOU been cured?? ;) :D

RandyWhat he said sounded very gay, not that there's anything wrong with that! :lol:

ScummyD

09-12-2006, 06:28 PM

The Outing 4.17.

neo of the mind

09-12-2006, 07:06 PM

It's funny, the people that are defenders of homosexuality as something normal, use it as a pejorative when attacking people that do not think the same way.

DRMIZER

09-12-2006, 08:49 PM

Yep, society has pressured homosexuals to act hetro, reproduce, and pass on the genes. Karl Rove is acually a prime example (seriously) of the offspring of a homosexual male.Now that one I like!! :D

DRMIZER

09-12-2006, 08:59 PM

So what if homosexuality is genetic??? Does that mean we must accept it merely because a person is born a homosexual? No.

I hear homophiles routinely argue that people are born homosexual, as if that in and of itself dictates that we must accept homosexuality as normal.You do not HAVE to accept anything while at the same time it would do no good to reject them.

While homosexuality should no be confused with other sexual orientations, surely if a person can be born attracted to the same sex a person can be born attracted to children.Pedophiles may or may not be "born that way." But then, hetrosexuals also can be attracted to children. There is no evidence to support that homosexuality and pedophila are in any way "related".

The point being that a person's birth does not bestow legitimacy on their future behavior. I'm not sure what this means. The way I read it, I agree.

ScummyD

09-12-2006, 09:33 PM

While homosexuality should no be confused with other sexual orientations, surely if a person can be born attracted to the same sex a person can be born attracted to children.

Pedophiles may or may not be "born that way." But then, hetrosexuals also can be attracted to children. There is no evidence to support that homosexuality and pedophila are in any way "related".
Note the highlighted portion that came first???

towski

09-12-2006, 09:54 PM

Note the highlighted portion that came first???

I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the fact that a genetic disposition towards a certain sexual behavior should not necessarily give license to the engagement in such behaviors. However, the obvious difference between homosexuality and pedophelia, bestiality, etc, at least to me, is that homosexual behavior is engaged in between consenting adults.

neo of the mind

09-12-2006, 10:38 PM

However, the obvious difference between homosexuality and pedophelia, bestiality, etc, at least to me, is that homosexual behavior is engaged in between consenting adults.

Which has nothing to do with genetics.

Cedars

09-13-2006, 08:40 PM

Ethical and clinical studies do have agenda. They want to prove or disprove a theory construct. A study can and almost always begins with a particular bias to "prove" a theory. Otherwise there would not be a need to do the study. However results may reveal many variations of the initial study. Valid studies have NEVER found that homosexuality can be effectively modified or changed. Attempting to change one's sexual orientation most likely will result in inner conflict, insecurity and self-doubt and eventually lead to clinical depression. Those patients who give into or "agree" to comply with a transition usually become celebate but remain true to their orientation.
Valid studies have NEVER found that homosexuality canNOT be effectively modified or changed. I have heard testimony from a Catholic man who was sure he was a homosexual, he never thought to question it, knew he was from a young age (did the gay marches and "everything," he said); but now (after therapy or counseling or whatever it was) he is happily married for, I think, six or seven years now and has a child(ren). He said it was a very difficult process, was sure most times that he was born that way, and several times he thought he would eventually revert. He stated that he is sure the faith of others helped him through it and he could not have done it without their prayers. Says he is very happy now with his wife and child(ren) and knows he will never revert, no interest.

Chad Thompson, an Evangelical Christian, has also overcome same-sex attraction. I believe he wrote a book and tells of his own conversion and the many obstacles facing men and women who might want to overcome their homosexuality.

DRMIZER

09-13-2006, 10:05 PM

Valid studies have NEVER found that homosexuality canNOT be effectively modified or changed. I have heard testimony from a Catholic man who was sure he was a homosexual, he never thought to question it, knew he was from a young age (did the gay marches and "everything," he said); but now (after therapy or counseling or whatever it was) he is happily married for, I think, six or seven years now and has a child(ren). He said it was a very difficult process, was sure most times that he was born that way, and several times he thought he would eventually revert. He stated that he is sure the faith of others helped him through it and he could not have done it without their prayers. Says he is very happy now with his wife and child(ren) and knows he will never revert, no interest.

Chad Thompson, an Evangelical Christian, has also overcome same-sex attraction. I believe he wrote a book and tells of his own conversion and the many obstacles facing men and women who might want to overcome their homosexuality.Of course I have heard the same kinds of ancedotal stories but likewise follow-ups have not be conducted. And these stories are always Christian based and to escape the fire of damnation.

Conversely what I have seen in the real world is the desperation of individuals believing they must change in order to be accepted. Depression usually follows "therapy" rather than any kind of change. A desperation and sense of failure is the product of "change" counseling. Persons who cavalierly instruct others what they "ought" to do have not seen the people in the clinical setting which is anything but pleasant. So much human misery could be eliminated if we could let go of some religious prejudices.

brainpan

09-13-2006, 10:23 PM

So what if homosexuality is genetic??? Does that mean we must accept it merely because a person is born a homosexual?Believe it or not, I actually like that argument. I'm not a big fan of putting Mother Nature on too high a pedastal. What some call natural is not always the best thing.
I hear homophiles routinely argue that people are born homosexual, as if that in and of itself dictates that we must accept homosexuality as normal.Point taken. I would suggest that "sodomite" is a more attention-getting label but maybe it's not as applicable.
While homosexuality should no be confused with other sexual orientations, surely if a person can be born attracted to the same sex a person can be born attracted to children.Fair enough. But I don't think anyone should even make the slightest suggestion that pedophilia and homosexuality are comparable in a moral sense.

DRMIZER

09-13-2006, 10:40 PM

Fair enough. But I don't think anyone should even make the slightest suggestion that pedophilia and homosexuality are comparable in a moral sense.In any sense. . .no moreso than comparing hetrosexuals to pedophila.

brainpan

09-13-2006, 10:45 PM

Valid studies have NEVER found that homosexuality can NOT be effectively modified or changed.Would anyone else like to field this one? I'm tired of lecturing about arguments from ignorance. Besides, my efforts seem to provoke people to wander even deeper into fallacy land.
I have heard testimony from a Catholic man who was sure he was a homosexual, he never thought to question it, knew he was from a young age (did the gay marches and "everything," he said)Have you heard of Mike Warnke? He is the Christian Evangelist/motivational speaker who lied about being in the high echelons of a Satanic conspiracy in order to promote himself and his narrow view of Christianity. The "Catholic man" may well have similar motivations in telling his story for all we know. That is why anecdotal evidence, especially when it is received from a biased source, sould be treated with extreme skepticism.
Chad Thompson, an Evangelical Christian, has also overcome same-sex attraction. I believe he wrote a book and tells of his own conversion and the many obstacles facing men and women who might want to overcome their homosexuality.I'm willing to give this a fair hearing. It may be possible to overcome sexual attraction. Perhaps hormonal adjustment, hypno-theapy, brainwashing, or the application of heavy drugs might do the trick. but I need hard evidence, not Mike Warnke stuff.

I imagine extreme measures would need to be taken to cause me to not be sexually attracted to women, something along the lines of Clockwork Orange. I have been attracted to women since well before puberty, I don't think I would really be me if I wasn't. I can't remember what that was like. I wouldn't willingly allow someone to mess with my mind/body like that, and I don't think homosexuals should submit to it either.

brainpan

09-13-2006, 10:53 PM

I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the fact that a genetic disposition towards a certain sexual behavior should not necessarily give license to the engagement in such behaviors.He made a good argument there. The "born that way" supporters of normalizing homosexuality--I'm a proud card-carrying member of that group-- need to rethink some of their reasoning on the subject.

Cedars

09-14-2006, 07:58 PM

Of course I have heard the same kinds of ancedotal stories but likewise follow-ups have not be conducted. And these stories are always Christian based and to escape the fire of damnation.

Conversely what I have seen in the real world is the desperation of individuals believing they must change in order to be accepted. Depression usually follows "therapy" rather than any kind of change. A desperation and sense of failure is the product of "change" counseling. Persons who cavalierly instruct others what they "ought" to do have not seen the people in the clinical setting which is anything but pleasant. So much human misery could be eliminated if we could let go of some religious prejudices.

What type of follow up are you referring to? The Catholic man I referred to was interviewed on EWTN and apparently the interview was at least six or seven years after the "treatment" -- so I imagine the treatment is "sticking" so far.

Your statement, "Conversely what I have seen in the world world ..." seems to imply a prejudice to only what you personally "witness." If you personally haven't seen something, does that mean that something isn't possible? That would be a very narrow view -- a prejudice, in fact.

I would imagine that depression would be involved when one is going through therapy -- that applies to other therapy or treatment as well, I would think, not just for homosexuality.

Biologists concentrate on biology, therapists concentrate on therapy, psychologists concentrate on psychology. We are more than just biology. There is no "homosexual" gene. Homosexuality is a behavior that, yes, can be influenced by biological factors. But that does not necessarily mean that homosexuality is absolutely, positively unchangeable. To make that absolute assertion is premature, not to mention narrowminded. At the very least, our minds should be open to the POSSIBILITY of therapy/counseling. ALL the sciences are important -- we cannot only value one aspect (namely, biology, in this case).

Cedars

09-14-2006, 08:10 PM

Would anyone else like to field this one? I'm tired of lecturing about arguments from ignorance. Besides, my efforts seem to provoke people to wander even deeper into fallacy land.
Whose ignorance, yours? There is no valid CONCLUSIVE evidence that homosexuality is unchangeable. Scientists do not agree.

Have you heard of Mike Warnke? He is the Christian Evangelist/motivational speaker who lied about being in the high echelons of a Satanic conspiracy in order to promote himself and his narrow view of Christianity. The "Catholic man" may well have similar motivations in telling his story for all we know. That is why anecdotal evidence, especially when it is received from a biased source, sould be treated with extreme skepticism.
No, never heard of Mike Warnke. But because "A" lied, you think it logical that "B" likely lied, too? Isn't it possible for "B" to tell the truth even if "A" lied? You automatically discount it anyway? If this is the type of logic you use, then I can see why you are convicted of your own beliefs. Convenient.

I'm willing to give this a fair hearing. It may be possible to overcome sexual attraction. Perhaps hormonal adjustment, hypno-theapy, brainwashing, or the application of heavy drugs might do the trick. but I need hard evidence, not Mike Warnke stuff.
I would imagine that therapy is a viable possibility. The mind has incredible capacity and power over the body.

I imagine extreme measures would need to be taken to cause me to not be sexually attracted to women, something along the lines of Clockwork Orange. I have been attracted to women since well before puberty, I don't think I would really be me if I wasn't. I can't remember what that was like. I wouldn't willingly allow someone to mess with my mind/body like that, and I don't think homosexuals should submit to it either.
Apparently, some homosexuals have willingly "submitted."