Busting the myth that gays can't change....

[.Sabre.]

Just as I will hide my children away from bigots and the narrow-minded.

A sound idea.

 

[selfinflikted]

Hmm...that seems rude
I will just hide my children away from them then
(when if I receive them lol)

Seriously, give children more credit - they can handle more than you think. Besides, it's not like they'll see it and it will suddenly make them gay. Welcome to reality.

 

[KomissarSteve]

You know, one thing I really need gay to do is don't kiss in front of me or get all touchy each other
That's all I'm asking.
Is this wrong?

Only if straights don't kiss or get touchy-feely in public.

 

[Beanieboy]

LOL! What about metrosexuals?

Metrosexuals are the problem of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. We have finally given straight girls what they want - gay looking guys that are straight - well dressed, the stupid cupie doll flip in the front of their hair or the faux hawk - and now, it seems like every guy is gay, and extremelly confusing for us.

When I first came to Toronto, I realized why we play the game Gay or Canadian in the states, because every guy is metro.

 

[fated]

Another CF'er posted that

Well, the small percentage quoted does not mean that many can change their sexual orientation with the current treatment methods available, but it surely indicates that change is possible.

The myth that sexual orientation can only change from heterosexual to homosexual has been debunked. Change is possible from homosexual to heterosexual.

Now lets just pray that more effective treatment methods are developed to help release so many more people from their bondage to sin.

I think that sexual orientation itself seems to be the myth. You may be programmed to run one way or the other or both, but you can surely learn to love the other it seems.

A lot of people learn to love their hand for instance. In ancient Greece and Rome boys where the norm. Looks more like a willingness to learn to love.

 

[PassionFruit]

Metrosexuals are the problem of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. We have finally given straight girls what they want - gay looking guys that are straight - well dressed, the stupid cupie doll flip in the front of their hair or the faux hawk - and now, it seems like every guy is gay, and extremelly confusing for us.

When I first came to Toronto, I realized why we play the game Gay or Canadian in the states, because every guy is metro.

I understand what you are saying. Though, I like a man who is well dressed and cares a little bit about his appearance.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I think that sexual orientation itself seems to be the myth. You may be programmed to run one way or the other or both, but you can surely learn to love the other it seems.

It depends on what you mean by "love," and no, sexual orientation does exist and cannot be changed. Sorry, but your opinion is contrary to scientific fact.

A lot of people learn to love their hand for instance. In ancient Greece and Rome boys where the norm.

This is also untrue.

 

[fated]

It depends on what you mean by "love," and no, sexual orientation does exist and cannot be changed. Sorry, but your opinion is contrary to scientific fact.



This is also untrue.

Well, the Wiki seems to think:
"While most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys,[4] exceptions to the rule were known, some avoiding relations with women, and others rejecting relations with boys."

While it mentions that the relationship was sometimes -chaste- and sometimes -sexual- this seems to indicate that society had a widespread acceptance and practice of men having sex with boys.

Just read the article and view some of the citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

...

 

[KomissarSteve]

Well, the Wiki seems to think:
"While most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys,[4] exceptions to the rule were known, some avoiding relations with women, and others rejecting relations with boys."

Wikipedia isn't a very compelling source. It's a good primer for some topics, but you're going to have to find something a little more credible if you're going to back up a blanket assertion like the one you made.

 

[fated]

Wikipedia isn't a very compelling source. It's a good primer for some topics, but you're going to have to find something a little more credible if you're going to back up a blanket assertion like the one you made.

Let's see what else I can get online...

http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/rome_ancient.html

Not alot for free, but these to from the resources you have to pay for...

 

[KomissarSteve]

Let's see what else I can get online...

http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/rome_ancient.html

Not alot for free, but these to from the resources you have to pay for...

As those sources point out, the norm was not necessarily to have sex with boys. It did happen, but you've far from proven that it was the norm.

Sorry, but this isn't helping your clumsy argument against homosexuality in the slightest, especially when it's been scientifically proven that they are born that way and cannot change their sexual orientations.

 

[fated]

As those sources point out, the norm was not necessarily to have sex with boys. It did happen, but you've far from proven that it was the norm.

Sorry, but this isn't helping your clumsy argument against homosexuality in the slightest, especially when it's been scientifically proven that they are born that way and cannot change their sexual orientations.

I'm sorry, but it has not been proven. All that is apparent is that people rarely change "orientations." Some sources insist that change is possible. Some of these sources have a lot of anecdotal evidence that they cannot share. This fact is respected by the scientific community. So, free choice is the null hypothesis. I believe that that is the reason why the research is done the way it is.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I don't get the whole it's a choice/they're born with it argument. Why is the question of whether you want to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex because of choice relevant at all?

 

[TheManeki]

Not alot for free, but these to from the resources you have to pay for...

As I have said elsewhere, you can get access to these documents for free via a university or public library.

Sometimes I wonder if the internet and Wikipedia have spoiled us too much. So much is now easily available, but there is increased resistance to go to less-convenient (but higher-caliber) sources.

 

[fated]

As I have said elsewhere, you can get access to these documents for free via a university or public library.

Sometimes I wonder if the internet and Wikipedia have spoiled us too much. So much is now easily available, but there is increased resistance to go to less-convenient (but higher-caliber) sources.

Sorry, you are completely correct.

 

[fated]

I don't get the whole it's a choice/they're born with it argument. Why is the question of whether you want to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex because of choice relevant at all?

One allows you to blame society for the lack of acceptance. The other makes you bear, at least part, of the responsibility.

One of the best things about being a white male is that you can't blame anyone. It is an extremely healthy attitude to have. Many black people have ascribed the same attitude to their own success for instance.

Of course, everyone is held back by "the man." But that has always been so. Even "the man" himself serves people for his own well being.

 

[IzzyPop]

I don't get the whole it's a choice/they're born with it argument. Why is the question of whether you want to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex because of choice relevant at all?

If homosexuality is an inborn trait then to discriminate against a homosexual is the equivalent to discriminating based upon race, disability, eye color, left-handedness. or any other reason that is beyond one's control.

If it in a choice, then it is not so cut and dried as to be called discrimination. It would be along the same lines as discriminating against smokers, vegans, and other optional life choices. Still bad, but can be excused to some degree.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I'm sorry, but it has not been proven. All that is apparent is that people rarely change "orientations."

It's so apparent, and has reached such a complete consensus among the scientific community, that arguing that sexual orientation can be changed is completely and utterly pointless.

Some sources insist that change is possible.

And those sources are non-scientific entities who have been proven to cause harm to homosexuals who do not want to be homosexuals, like the Ex-Gay Movement.

This fact is respected by the scientific community.

Mmmmm, no it isn't: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html

 

[beechy]

I have never been good at math. As a kid in school I always excelled in reading and writing courses, and struggled in math. It just never came naturally to me like it did for some other students, and I didn't enjoy doing it at all. That doesn't mean I couldn't push my way through it -- and I did. I had an excellent math teacher in high school and ended up taking calculus as a junior, and advanced calculas / quadratics as a senior. Did I like it? Nope. Did it ever become easy for me? Nope. I just did it because I knew I needed it to get in to college ... where I dropped it as quickly as I could in favor of the social sciences and humanities which I enjoyed and continued to excel at.

I think of homosexuality in much the same way. People are born with proclivities. Does this mean a gay man can't have sex with a woman? No. Does it mean that he can't try to explore or develop that side of himself that may be attracted to women? No. Does that mean such an exploration will change how he feels about women ... or men? Maybe, maybe not. I'm pretty sure that all the math tutors in the world couldn't make me a mathematician -- or, at least, they could never make me better at numbers than I am with words. It's just not me. I don't have an inner Pythagorus, and if I was forced to look for it rather than be allowed to go with what I'm naturally good at I think I'd be pretty miserable.

Similarly, I think there are bisexuals out there who can probably consciously or subconsciously suppress the side of themselves that is attracted to the same sex. But why? Why would you try to force someone who is a gifted writer that is primarily or exclusively attracted to the same sex to be a heterosexual accountant? It just doesn't make any sense.

I guess you'd first have to buy into the idea that it is bad to be homosexual, and for those of us who disagree, this seems like nothing but a mean spirited exercise in frustration.

 

[fated]

It's so apparent, and has reached such a complete consensus among the scientific community, that arguing that sexual orientation can be changed is completely and utterly pointless.



And those sources are non-scientific entities who have been proven to cause harm to homosexuals who do not want to be homosexuals, like the Ex-Gay Movement.



Mmmmm, no it isn't: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html

You can read into that article if you want. It is quite good. You should contemplate what it is saying and what it is not saying.