quote:

---

Homosexuality is not some sort of illness. It's a variation.

---

Well, I think we'll find this discussion depends entirely on whether one thinks the above claim is true, so you can hardly just assert it.

I happen to believe it is not an illness, but I must admit I don't have much of a reason for that belief, other than because it seems like the default and I see no strong reason to believe otherwise.

I will say that there is such a thing as illness, even a moral illness. Being born with the desire to murder would not make murder okay. So, the question is - is homosexuaity okay?

[ February 23, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I haven't read Homecoming.. (Well, not that one..)
It's not a matter of sneering. It's wondering what is worse for society: an openly gay man, or a gay man who tries to kill his gayness, marries a woman and causes her to be unhappy because he likes men and not women. Because women just don't satisfy him that way.
To me it leads to lying, self doubt, suicidal thoughts and things that are a lot worse than someone being allowed to be gay.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think we should mourn those who feel compelled by societal delusion to marry despite having no physical attraction to their spouse.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
It's sad. Because it's damaging to their psyches, damaging to their wives and also to the children! These places like Exodus have no scientific proof that their methods work.
And how do they propose to cure gayness? Make men play football and women put on make-up?
Yes, I do sound rude, but it just makes me so angry.
I got to do research on their methods.

And the worse thing is teenagers... who are already confused falling in with these groups who don't even realize they are teaching someone to hate themselves!

[ February 23, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
I thinks a man marrying a woman to take on the appearance of heterosexuality does more to damage the institution of Marriage than allowing gay couples to marry.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I agree! You always have sensible things to say, Dan_raven...
And to make matters more annoying they just think that gayness is about not being a proper man or a proper woman. Whatever that means. That is not the case! There are a lot of gay guys that like football and lesbians sporting lipstick and bright coloured dresses...
It's hard to even read this stuff
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I see your point, Syn.

Annie-- I think the distinction is one of self-imposed choice over external guilt and pressure. I mean, if a man wants a family and his range of sexuality will allow a reasonably happy life for himself and his wife, then, more power to him. I read somewhere that only something like 6% of people are 'all gay' or 'all straight', and I think that may be true. Most aspects of life are points along a continuum, even in genetics (frex, my mother has so much native american blood that when she had a perm she'd be mistaken for a light-skinned African American. I have a bit less melanin than she did, but still I get mistaken for Middle-Eastern, Israeli and mixed Asian-- I'm certainly not as pale as my children). I think OSC even had one of his characters who has been called 'gay' describe himself as '37% attracted to women' (Songmaster?).

I do sort of agree with Syn, on the 'variation' idea. In doing some fruit fly breeding experiments, I always had some male fruit flies that tried to mate with other males. It happened in every about every generation, even though THOSE individuals probably didn't reproduce (though I'm not SURE, because they were, you know, FRUIT FLIES, for crying out loud).

That makes me wonder if the ex-gay movement might not be self-defeating. If it IS genetic, then nature limits the passage of those traits by the expression of them ( though variation allows for small numbers in each generation). Force them to reproduce and you have MORE of those struggling, conflicted individuals in ech generation.

Er, don't mind me... just thinking with my fingers...
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Olivet, it was Songmaster, though he also mentioned attraction to sheep and ended it with a pick-up line so I was under the impression it was at least partially a joke... though there was some validity, I don't think anyone in the pro-homosexual marriage camp wants to base anything on OSC's idea's.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I don't think it's HIS idea, necessarily, but it feels true to me, on some level. So why not?

It's funny to me, because the ex-gay movement is big in the very religious community ( to whoever it was that first posted the term "Mormosexual"), and it makes sense to me that forcing people to act against their sexual inclinations runs a tremendous risk of increasing the occurrence of those inclinations.

So in a wierd, less-compassionate-than-normal-for-me way, I support the ex-gay movement. Breed in the deviants!

[ February 23, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Well, okay... if being gay is wrong or unholy or whatever, which option is the better choice:

Staying celebate?

Or marrying without physical attraction?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
So what do we do if the ex-gays have a valid point, Syn?

Or what if ex-gays can be perfectly happy? Happier than if they were gay?

All of your disaster scenarios rely on people NOT being able to accomplish a full lifestyle transition.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Then if they are happier, they should go for it. But it depends...
It depends if they are really happy or just pretending and hiding backsliding habits.
It depends if this really, really is the right path for them.
But it's hard to gather information over whether or not that is true.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I dunno what Syn thinks, but I bet at least a few could manage it, Scott. Maybe more than not.

I mean, if I woke up tomorrow wanting the boobies, I think I'd still be happier with the hubby. I think it's a balance between social pressure and a person's particular placement on the sexual continuum.

If you can do it with the opposite sex, I can see where that would be the path of least resistance, socially. But if you can't... well, that would suck.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
"It depends if they are really happy or just pretending and hiding backsliding habits."

Both sides of this dicussion depend VERY heavily on doubting the true feelings of case studies from the other side.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I think its important to remember that characters in books can do things that wouldn't happen in real life.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I'm not sure I see your point, fugu. Care to elaborate? I think history shows us plenty of examples of men who prefer the company of men who were married and had children. Like, say, Oscar Wilde.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
I think fugu's point was that it's fiction.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Oscar Wilde was very happy.

Was his wife?

Were his children?

Oscar Wilde was anything but faithful to his wife if you consider having sex with members of your own sex as being unfaithful to your spouse.

I am a big believer in the power and supremacy of love. I think the bigger question, once we get our minds out of the sexual gutter, is, "Can two men or two women fall in love with each other."

Most opponents to homosexuals do not beleive such an "unnatural" connection can happen. They assume its all lust and can be prevented with a little fortitude.

Most pro-Gay marriage people believe that Love can occur between two people of any sex. To them, to people like me, any attemt to force apart two people in love because it goes against your ideas of right and wrong and order in the universe is in of itself, wrong.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Well, yeah. The "Happy" part was fiction.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I don't know why anyone would be opposed to the "ex-gay" movement. If that's how someone chooses to live, out of faith or any other reason, why would you consider that wrong?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
The only worry I have about the Ex-Gay movement, the only reason I'd oppose it, were if it used techniques that forced people into doing or being things that were unhealthy. In other words, they used brain-washing techniques to make a person hide and debase their homosexuality.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Because some gay people might feel condemned and hurt by trying to live a lie, or whatever.

I don't think it'sd the individual choices people object to; I think it's the marketting.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
it is probably possible for a gay man to fall in love with a straight woman and a lesbian to fall for a man...
Sex is a different matter. There's a difference between sexual attraction and love in a lot of cases.
My objection is the damage it could be done to someone's already fragile psyche. Especially that of a teenager.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

The only worry I have about the Ex-Gay movement, the only reason I'd oppose it, were if it used techniques that forced people into doing or being things that were unhealthy. In other words, they used brain-washing techniques to make a person hide and debase their homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

Because some gay people might feel condemned and hurt by trying to live a lie, or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Bailey, JM; Dunne,MP; Martin,NG (2000): Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. J. Pers. Social Psychology 78, 524-536.

---

quote:

---

Repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex.

In boys, preference for cross-dressing, or simulating female attire. In girls, insistence on wearing only stereotypical masculine clothing.

Strong and persistent preference for cross-sexual roles in make-believe play, or persistent fantasies of being the other sex.

Intense desire to participate in stereotypical games and pastimes of the other sex.

Strong preference for playmates of the other sex.

---

Not all gay guys dress up like women or talk in high pitched voices!

[ February 23, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I'm not here to defend him as a scientist (because I'm not one myself), but allowing that what you say is probably true, does that invalidate everything else said?

Specifically, does the existence of more than 800 people who were once gay and were then able to change until they now live heterosexual lives impact anyone's understanding of homosexuality? Those 800 people have been through the ministry they sponsor, they know who they are, they are not faceless stats.

I have a hard time believing that homosexuality is an inherent trait that can NEVER be changed, when so many people have in fact changed. Who knows how many more might now be living their lives as heterosexuals if we looked at this as something that could be altered? Everyone trumpets the high incidence of gay teen suicides, what if we had educational programs at school offering free counseling for teens with homosexual feelings? Could we prevent those suicides? What if we told them "you can be helped, we can get you help" instead of "you're born that way, you can never change"

That last message is devastating to a young boy who doesn't want to be homosexual. Who wants to grow up marry, have children and a dog and a house with a picket fence. If we put that kid in therapy and helped direct his sexual desires toward healthy attraction to females, would we not be doing him a great favor?
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Just going back to your point about Zdorab and Shedemei in Homecoming Annie - the situation there was made different by the fact that for a lot of the time, Zdorab had no option but celibacy. (In terms of there were no potential sexual partners for him).

And there were significant problems in their marriage, caused because of Zdorab's love of Shedemei not being sexual.

As Hobbes said, I shouldn't use OSC to support a pro-homosexual marriage standpoint.

I'm not even sure if I disagree with homosexual people deciding on celibate, straight, marriage: if (and it's a big if) they are choosing freely and not due to social pressure.

A thought just occured to me: would a celibate homosexual marriage (so still a union of sexual love, as well as platonic love - kinda like a homosexual version of the Children of the Mind of Christ in the Ender series) still be problematic for those people who oppose non-celibate homosexual marriage?

Edited for spelling.

[ February 23, 2004, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Okay, I went back and re-read it fugu, and he does not say it would be constant across different cultures. He says it would be constant through time and history, but instead we see that it flourishes in certain times and cultures. He does not say that the incidence would be constant across all ethnic groups.

I'm not saying he's right, but I am saying that your criticism is not addressed to what he really said. And I doubt you'll give him any credence anyway, since he uses references to the Biblical text for examples of these ebbs in the behaviors.

And syn, they did not say effeminate boys all turn out to be homosexual. Nor did they say all homosexuals were effeminate boys.

quote:

---

It is important to understand, however, that most of my homosexual clients were not explicitly feminine when they were children.

But make no mistake. A boy can be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle—and be heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician—and heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are "who he is," part of the wonderful range of human abilities, and there's no reason to discourage them. But they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood.

---

quote:

---

Studies with identical twins show that while they do tend to be more likely than unrelated people to both be the same sexual orientation, there is no 100% correlation. If your gay, your identical twin isn't always.

---

The 100% correlation would only occur if "gayness" were entirely genetic and passed down through simple mendelian genetics. However, environmental factors likely play a part. Lets look at two different "traits."

Bailey and Pillard look at homosexuality in 1991, and find "52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual."

An article by Hyttinen et all in 2003 looks at diabetes type I and finds, "The crude probandwise concordance rate for type 1 diabetes was 42.9% (95% CI 26.7 59.2%) in MZ and 7.4% (2.2-12.6%) in DZ twins. The crude pairwise concordance rate was 27.3% (22.8-31.8%) in MZ and 3.8% (2.7-4.9%) in DZ twins (Table 1)."

(Proband means "An affected person ascertained independently of his relatives in a genetic study")

Is diabetes 1 associated with genetics? yes. Does it have other factors? yes.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
In that case, note that sickle cell anemia is not constant across time and history. I wasn't using cultures to mean ethnic groups, I was using cultures to mean specific historical groupings of people.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Sun, you are right. I acknowledge that. One can be born with a predisposition for diabetes and because of environmental factors only one identical twin gets diabetes.

One can be born with a predisposition to homosexual attraction, but with appropriate therapy turn that attraction toward the opposite sex. That's what I'm asserting. Not denying that people are in fact born with a tendency to be gay, it may very well be so. But that doesn't mean the person is "definitely gay" and nothing can be done about it.

After all, the person born with the gene that predisposes him to alcoholism is not destined to be an alcoholic. His behavior will determine whether he does or not. I personally see homosexuality in a similar vein.

That is my personal opinion, based on what I've read and observed, it does not mean that I think everyone has to agree with me. I know a lot of people won't. HOwever, I think we need to step back and look at what ministries like Love Won Out and Exodus are doing. And we need to think about and consider the idea that homosexuals who are not happy in their homosexuality may be able to change and be happier. And that's a good thing, for them to be happier, isn't it?
 

---

Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
 
Belle, your assumption that twins should have a 100% concordance rate is flawed.

For examples:
50-80% concordance rate in bipolar disorder
40% concordance rate in unipolar depression
30-60% concordance rate in autism
50% concordance in ADD.

Did you choose to have depression and ADD?
Do autistic children choose? Some kids with autism can undergo changes that would be considered "cures" yet that doesn't mean they didn't really have autism in the first place. Some genetic traits are too complicated to understand right now; homosexuality may well be one of them. Oh, and don't take my percentages too literally. I looked a few places and picked out averages. There are a LOT of twin studies out there and many contradict each other.

(Dang, Suneun beat me to it!!)

[ February 23, 2004, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Theca ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Why is sickle cell anemia not constant, what factors influence that? This is not a challenge, I already said you were probably right in your criticism on that point, I'm just curious.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Also, 800 is not many. In fact, it is vanishingly few. There are 300 million people in this nation. If, at an extremely conservative estimate, 1% of them are homosexual, that is 3 million people. 800 people is less than three hundredths of one percent. And the homosexual population is at least three or four times larger than that, meaning 800 is almost certainly under one hundredth of one percent.

In a population of that size, I would expect there to be 800 people doing just about anything you name.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
And I've already acknowledged, Theca, that I know this. And, that my particular take on this subject doesn't rely on 100% concordance.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
People with sickle-cell anemia are more likely to survive malaria; thus sickle-cell anemia is selected for (and thus more common) in populations where there is malaria, or who came from areas where there was malaria, because people in those areas without sickle-cell anemia are at a survival disadvantage.

I'm already emailing him with the correction, but pardon my suspicions that he is going to keep asserting that anything hereditary should be constant across history.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
fugu, how many of your 3 million people sought therapeutic treatment?

The 800 success stories speak loudly because very few people have even tried this. It's been lambasted by so many, and called names like "brainwashing" that I don't imagine a large percentage of your 3 million gay people have attempted therapy.

So that argument doesn't hold. We don't know how many people tried treatment and failed. 800 compared to 3 million isn't a big number, but if only 1000 sought treatment and there were 800 successes, that's a meaningful statistic.

Now, I pulled that 1000 figure out of the air, I don't know what their success rate is. But I'm sure I can find some reference to it.

It won't be until late tonight though, time to cook supper, my hubby will be home soon. And that's a reason to smile.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
While I don't have numbers handy, I'd find interesting your response to if more people considered themselves to be harming themselves before they acknowledged their homosexuality (say, after a long period of attempted heterosexual relations).
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Also, I predict you'd find most homosexual people try to fit into a heterosexual lifestyle initially. While anecdotal evidence does not prove anything, I can't think of a single homosexual person I know who I've talked to in depth (a few over a dozen, in this case) who didn't have at least one, and usually more, heterosexual relationships (including sex in at least a couple cases) in an attempt to "be normal" before acknowledging they weren't heterosexual.
 

---

Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
 
Well, sickle cell anemia is a simpler disease. Sickle cell anemia is a problem with a single gene. It happens to be a critical gene required in making blood. So if a person has 2 copies of the defective gene...then they have no intact copy of the gene. So then basically 100% of people with that genotype will express it.

Other traits like diabetes or depression may have multiple genes involved that affect not only whether the disease is present; but how severe it is. There may be other genes involved that can also affect how and when the disease is expressed. I have no idea how a phenotype like height or skin tone gets expressed, for example, but I am sure it is much more complicated than the expression of sickle cell anemia.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh, definitely, I'm just pointing out that hereditary != constant across populations (throughtout history, or what have you).

Heck, skin color is hereditary to a large extent, and lo, it is not constant across populations (again, throughout history or whichever).

Skin tone's expression is definitely quite complex; we know the tone depends directly on at least three different properties of melanin polymers, and the factors influencing those are quite complex. Also, we only know of a few of the genes involved in the production of melanain polymers, mainly those tied to specific mendelian disorders such being albino.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Also, due to some bad coding on their site, I'm not able to submit their form -- it relies on some malformed javascript that on my platform redirects me to another page whenever I try to type.

I'll try with another browser later, or call their toll free number when its available.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Belle, I think that there are people who can "learn" to want a different gender than the one they start with.

A "straight" person can later become "homosexual." A homosexual can later "become" straight. Sexuality does not need to be black and white, a constant throughout life.

However, the fact that hundreds of people have changed sexuality does not mean that millions of people can change sexuality.

---

It has been commented in this discussion and I agree, that no matter which direction a sexuality is, a change in sexuality should not be forced on anyone. Homosexuality is not a disease to me, is not a disease to the Medical Profession, is not a disease to millions of people. We do not have the right to force "treatment" on people. If they wish to chance their affinity during the course of their lives, good for them. I'm sure millions of people have changed sexuality preference over the course of their lives, and millions more will. But it's their choice, either way.
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
PREFACE: I don't think there's anything immoral about homosexuality, or that there is any reason why somebody should be encouraged to try to change their orientation. I think that if we were most concerned with the emotional well-being of young people, the best message we could give them is that there is nothing wrong with them as they are. (I understand where you are coming from if your religion tells you this message is incorrect, but this is what I believe.)

BUT:

I guess I'm playing Devil's advocate here, and I fear I'll get lambasted for even daring to make this comparison, but to those who say that attempting to change your orientation is impossible, unhealthy, destructive, etc etc etc . . . Isn't this pretty much what we expect/hope/wish pedophiles would do? Please understand that I am not suggesting these inclinations are at all analogous, or that one is associated with the other. But they are both cases of a sexual attraction that deviates from the accepted norm. And so I think there is some value in discussing these different attractions side by side.

Is it impossible to change what one is attracted to? Is it automatically undesireable/destructive/unhealthy to do so?

[ February 23, 2004, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
The only problem with this vague analogy is that there are victims in pedophilia. A victimless "crime" would be a better vague analogy. Can't think of one right now, attempting to study...
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
*sigh*

And you have completely missed my point.


 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
I went to great lengths to say that the two were not morally equivalent, but I have noticed before that you don't read posts before you respond to them. There was nothing the least bit vague about my analogy. My analogy was not to the moral aspect, but to the fact that we do expect some to overcome their sexual predilections, and this seems to contradict the PC Truth that it is impossible for homosexuals to do this.

I'm not saying homosexuals should, but questioning our certainty in two seemingly contradictory stances.

If you have nothing to say other than to insult me, I would encourage you to keep quiet and let people who are willing to address my post, rather than insult it, do so.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
you don't think adults can be manipulated and victimized? Is there something magical that happens on your 18th birthday that changes you from a victim to a willing participant?
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
What? Insult you?

What?!?!

I read your post. I did, I did. In a quick reply, I felt that while it is socially acceptable to "reform" pedophiliacs, I think the reason is entirely because of the existence of victims.

I know you weren't trying to draw a parallel between the two. I just meant that a more interesting question of Changing what one is sexually attracted to would need a victimless set up.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
You simply misread my phrase "vague analogy." All I meant was to refer to your analogy, even though you said it wasn't an analogy, as something with a setup. Does that make any sense?

I was just calling it so as a method of referring to it, not as disbelieving your statement.

* surprised *
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
I apologize. I think I had you confused with somebody else on this board with a vaguely similar nickname, and it seemed to me that you were dismissing my point by explaining to me the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. And you're right, I interpreted "vague analogy" as a dismissal and an insult. Clearly, I overreacted, and I'm sorry.

I think you're right that we (mostly) only consider it acceptable in the case where there is a victim (taking for granted that most of us don't see a victim in homosexual love). Moreover, I don't think it's possible to think of a victimless setup for an analogy. (The only thing I can think of, and it too is a poor analogy, is masturbation. But most of us who see no need for homosexuals to curb their attractions also see no moral issue in masturbation. *shrug*) That's kind of my point. That we, as social "nonconservatives," for lack of a better term, take for granted that people can't change their nature--except when the chips fall down, when the stakes are high enough, we back away from that stance. And so I'm wondering if we should back away from "it's impossible" and simply argue from the standpoint of "it's not necessary."
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
If we didn't think there were victims, why would we ask people to change?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Umm, this thread started out talking about people who decided to change for themselves. There's lots of "victimless" behavior people decide to change about themselves. There's lots of "victimless" behavior people think should change in other people.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

Also, I predict you'd find most homosexual people try to fit into a heterosexual lifestyle initially. While anecdotal evidence does not prove anything, I can't think of a single homosexual person I know who I've talked to in depth (a few over a dozen, in this case) who didn't have at least one, and usually more, heterosexual relationships (including sex in at least a couple cases) in an attempt to "be normal" before acknowledging they weren't heterosexual.

---

quote:

---

I think we should mourn those who feel compelled by societal delusion to marry despite having no physical attraction to their spouse.

---

Even though we in the Western world only learned how to do this in the last century or two?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I haven't been rude? Good...
*a polite crusader*
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I just want to give everyone a big hug for this thread so far. It's been very thoughtful, intelligent, respectful on everyone's part.


 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Gah, double post and I deleted the first one so now it looks strange for my group hug to be after Syn's remark.

Anyway, syn, why would you say you'd encourage that person to "go back gay?"

I mean, if people can change, and they are now happy with their change, why would you want them to go back to a state that they obviously weren't happy with?
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
A too-polite thread dies quickly

Here we go. If someone wants to change their sexuality, then it's nice when resources are available. However, for me some of these "resource groups" would look an awful lot like a proselytizing religious group. I have the same problem with proselytizing groups as I do with a "forceful" methodology by a Change Their Sexuality group. I think both impinge on one's personal sovereignty (complete independence and self-government).

Advertising is one thing. Guilt-tripping and excessive persistence are another.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
By definition, a group that wants to help gays turn from their lifestyle and back to heterosexuality is going to be a group that believes heterosexuality is normal, and that homoesexuality is something that needs to be treated.

Therefore, most of those groups are going to be religious in nature, because mainstream psychology and psychiatry does not hold that view.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Oh I don't have a problem with them being religious.

I don't have a problem with religions just because they're religions.

It's the question of emotional manipulation. Maybe most "gay help" groups don't use any emotional manipulation. And people who really want that resource take it upon themselves to find it. But there are a few that do use emotional manipulation. And those are the few that I don't like.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Oh, I wanted to add something about guilt-tripping as you put it.

I see a Christian counselor, the group she belongs to was supported originally by a large evangelical church.

None of my therapy has ever included assigning guilt. Christianity is not about guilt, it's about redemption and love. My therapist struggles very hard to help me let go of the guilt I carry, she never adds any to me.

My understanding of these ministries (and I can only go by things I've read, I have no personal experience with them) is that they strive to help people re-identify with their gender, and repair or heal any wounds that may have occurred at an early age like sexual molestation, abandonment by a same-sex parent, and other things that are considered risk factors for homosexual behavior.

Now, I will insert my standard disclaimer that I know that every person abandoned by their father or sexually molested or otherwise traumatized in childhood is not going to become a homosexual, and not all homosexuals have such incidents in their past. They are risk factors, not absolute determinants.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I see your reply, now Sun, and I will agree with you that emotional manipulation and assigning guilt is not something I would endorse.

I'm not aware of any that use these tactics, but I'm admitedly not exactly involved in that type of ministry. They could exist, and I would have a problem with them too.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Goodie, we agree!


 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I studied Gandhi for a class I am in, and I found it extremely interesting that he had a crappy marriage until he took a vow of CELIBACY! After that, he devoted himself to his work in serving mankind, and it seems that he and his wife became closer and more intimate, in all areas but the bedroom.

If this is possible, then why not gays choosing to live celibate or heterosexual marriages (that may or may not involve sex)?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I have no problem with people of ANY orientation choosing to partake in a sexless marriage; I have a problem, however, making sexlessness a prerequisite of marriage for some people.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
On the other hand, I have been to one of these Ex-Gay Movement lectures. Shortly after a fellow I knew "came out" to some of the people in our Christian group, the group put on one of these lectures. I found it to be offensive and stupid. My friend had left - I only heard the gossip. I never got to say goodbye to him. And then here were all these people trying to make people do things they either couldn't or weren't ready for. There was much guilt-tripping and "Jesus saves" going on. Not much logic or helpful advice. It was at this point when I began seriously questioning my current religious beliefs.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I agree it certainly is possible for homosexual people to choose one of those routes. Just as its possible for heterosexual people to follow Ghandi's example.
 

---