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

[Skaloop]

To an atheist, immodesty and gay marriage can make excellent sense until they become president of an underpopulated underdefended country.

Wow. That in no way whatsoever addresses my question. Holy avoision, Batman!

 

[IzzyPop]

To an atheist, immodesty and gay marriage can make excellent sense until they become president of an underpopulated underdefended country.

Riiight...'Cause if we make gay marriage legal, everyone will go gay...sounds like a plan.

Of course, the chances of there being an atheistic President anytime soon is next to nill.

 

[beechy]

He's an ungrateful bastard.

Whatever do you mean?

 

[beechy]

Personal choice... is implied. Free will is the null hypothesis they are attempting to disprove... with statistics...

What do you mean "[f]ree will is the null hypothesis"?

 

[beechy]

#268

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." (Emphasis mine)

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

What in the world does ancient Greek pederasty have to do with anything?

 

[beechy]

He's not very gay when he's laying pipe. That's the problem I have with the APA's definition.

What if he's fantasizing about a man the whole time?

 

[beechy]

Besides, I don't think therapy will ever work. It's like telling a smoker that they aren't addicted to smoking. Stop liking cigarettes. It's ridiculous.

What's this analogy supposed to show? That the real way to "cure" homosexuality is with a nicotine patch?

You learn to love. And while you may lose out on the head over heels, which is tragic, you are talking to a man who been married for six years. I got one lady, and we take care of each other.

That's great. Do you think you could love a man in the same way that you love your wife? I'm not asking you to be unfaithful to her. I'm posing a hypothetical in which you're supposed to assume you're not married.

 

[beechy]

I think calling a man who is faithfully married to a woman gay is thoroughly disrespectful, misleading, and truly damages his "personal justice."

Unless it is true.

 

[beechy]

One wonders if he stopped "considering" men... "by himself" if he could learn to be truly attracted to a woman. Or, if he considered his marriage an actual sacred bond.

Of course:

It's a free country, it's his choice.

That's right, it was his choice to marry a woman. Nobody is arguing differently. And he may well consider his marriage a sacred bond. But you asked if he is gay or straight if, despite his marriage, he claims to be only attracted to men. And I say, if he's being truthful, he's a gay man in a straight marriage.

 

[beechy]

To an atheist, immodesty and gay marriage can make excellent sense until they become president of an underpopulated underdefended country.

I don't understand how this responds in any way shape or form to Skaloop's question. Total non sequiter.

 

[Jersey]

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.

And what do these treatments consist of? Religious indoctrination and brainwashing possibly?

From bondage to sin? what is sin? do you have a logical definition for such a thing?

I personally don't think there is anything worse than the bondage of religious belief.

It makes me almost want to thank God I never became a Christian.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

And what do these treatments consist of? Religious indoctrination and brainwashing possibly?

From bondage to sin? what is sin? do you have a logical definition for such a thing?

I personally don't think there is anything worse than the bondage of religious belief.

It makes me almost want to thank God I never became a Christian.

I can understand your comment given the current state of who most people hear when it comes to the Christian voice, but I'm hear to tell you...MOST Christians are not of the fundamentalist denomination. However, it is unfortunate that they have the radio/tv for everyone to hear. Bondage of what some people call their faith is quite honestly very scary. I'm with you on that. I'm a christian, but certainly worlds away from the beliefs of the extremeists. As for those "changing" from gay to str8...99.9% of those looking to do so, or claim that it can happen are all of the fundamentalist religious belief. Through ex-gay ministries (all fundamentalist religious organizations that shroud themselves in secrecy and do NOT publish results), and other faith based organizations..the claims are made. Outside of faith-based groups...it's not even a concept b/c no one cares, nor is sexuality something that should be changed. It is what it is and case closed. You can't make a str8 person gay as much as you wanna brainwash them...not sure why anyone would think it works differently by making a gay person str8. Just madness...and a touch of the person's personal issues with homosexuality and thus default it to a "religious belief"

 

[silentreader]

I can understand your comment given the current state of who most people hear when it comes to the Christian voice, but I'm hear to tell you...MOST Christians are not of the fundamentalist denomination. However, it is unfortunate that they have the radio/tv for everyone to hear. Bondage of what some people call their faith is quite honestly very scary. I'm with you on that. I'm a christian, but certainly worlds away from the beliefs of the extremeists. As for those "changing" from gay to str8...99.9% of those looking to do so, or claim that it can happen are all of the fundamentalist religious belief. Through ex-gay ministries (all fundamentalist religious organizations that shroud themselves in secrecy and do NOT publish results), and other faith based organizations..the claims are made. Outside of faith-based groups...it's not even a concept b/c no one cares, nor is sexuality something that should be changed. It is what it is and case closed. You can't make a str8 person gay as much as you wanna brainwash them...not sure why anyone would think it works differently by making a gay person str8. Just madness...and a touch of the person's personal issues with homosexuality and thus default it to a "religious belief"

where do you get the percentages in your post? the fact that you go to a church that disregards parts of the Bible in order to draw more people through the doors doesn't mean that is what the majority of churches are doing.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

where do you get the percentages in your post? the fact that you go to a church that disregards parts of the Bible in order to draw more people through the doors doesn't mean that is what the majority of churches are doing.

??? what are you talking about??? I go to a church that disregards parts of the Bible? Where do you get that? Or are you within the fundamentalist fashion which is "my way is the right way"?? Not sure..perhaps you can enlighten me? I NEVER said I go to something that the "majority of churches are doing". Again, why did you take a post and completely twist it to be something it is not?

The ONE percentage I used, 99.9%, was my sarcasim. In fact, it is proably 100% because it is ONLY faith based that ex-gay ministry is founded. When you look at the ministries that are involved in it..they are 100% of literal/biblical philosophy, simply b/c they are the only ones to advocate "change". That is why I said what I said.

 

[silentreader]

??? what are you talking about??? I go to a church that disregards parts of the Bible? Where do you get that? Or are you within the fundamentalist fashion which is "my way is the right way"?? Not sure..perhaps you can enlighten me? I NEVER said I go to something that the "majority of churches are doing". Again, why did you take a post and completely twist it to be something it is not?

The ONE percentage I used, 99.9%, was my sarcasim.

to believe acting on homosexual urges is not sin is ignoring parts of the Bible. i am not saying you are not saved or anything of the sort. i am saying that the trend of cultural Christianity is prevelant and seems to be engaged by your church. regardless, i hope you should be able to see that you made a claim that basically everyone agrees with you except fundamentalists. now you claim it was sarcasm. so which is it? using sarcasm to make a point actually doesn't help the argument. it just clouds someone from seeing what you are really trying to say and what facts you have to back up your argument.

 

[IzzyPop]

where do you get the percentages in your post? the fact that you go to a church that disregards parts of the Bible in order to draw more people through the doors doesn't mean that is what the majority of churches are doing.

I too would question that percentage. I think it is too low. Can you name even one secular organization that advocates changing someones sexual orientation? Can you name even one that cares about it in any way as other then a reactionary position due to conservative zealot's bigoted position?

Even with God, people cannot change their orientation. Let God heal an amputee, then we will talk about what God's power can and can't do.

 

[fated]

I too would question that percentage. I think it is too low. Can you name even one secular organization that advocates changing someones sexual orientation? Can you name even one that cares about it in any way as other then a reactionary position due to conservative zealot's bigoted position?

Even with God, people cannot change their orientation. Let God heal an amputee, then we will talk about what God's power can and can't do.

Well, it seems that the APA thinks that sexual orientation develops over a lifetime. It also states that it is an attraction to a particular person. It certainly doesn't say that one cannot foster a relationship that seems unnatural to the participant initially, and eventually have personal attraction. Obviously, in the past, men in the classical world have practiced an unnatural preponderance of pederasty and heterosexuality simultaneously. Add to that propensity to "choose" to like boys, the monogamous relationship, and surely you could have traditional couples. This issue seems ridiculous. To extrapolate a consensus from the works of a "gay issues" scientist is to reduce in your mind his full capacity to understand all the studies that he has seen. They already drew a consensus and continue to refine a theory as time goes on. To add your consensus is spurious.

Counter: I love the healed amputees line. They apparently are "rare" in that they occur throughout time in clusters around particularly holy priests. Other incurable diseases have no hope of proving anything. Are we are supposed believe that a person who is healthy will prove something when a doctors opinion that someone with Parkinson's was spontaneously healed does not. It is a pointless discussion. If you are too skeptical, what is the point. If your own arm grew back, that would probably be enough?

 

[levi501]

to believe acting on homosexual urges is not sin is ignoring parts of the Bible.

It's better than believing God is unjust and evil to the point he would create people where the only way they can experience romantic love is in a sinful state.

Yah your literal infallible view of the bible is easy to discard when it contradicts Jesus's second commandment.

 

[beechy]

Well, it seems that the APA thinks that sexual orientation develops over a lifetime. It also states that it is an attraction to a particular person. It certainly doesn't say that one cannot foster a relationship that seems unnatural to the participant initially, and eventually have personal attraction.

What's your point? That a lesbian should enter into a relationship with a man in the hopes that eventually, over time, she'll develop an attraction for that man which will rid her of her gayness?

Obviously, in the past, men in the classical world have practiced an unnatural preponderance of pederasty and heterosexuality simultaneously.

What do you mean, "unnatural"?

Add to that propensity to "choose" to like boys, the monogamous relationship, and surely you could have traditional couples. This issue seems ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is this statement. What in the heck are you talking about? The propensity to choose to like boys and a monogomous relationship could "have traditional couples"? Your prose is impenetrable, and your point, elusive.

To extrapolate a consensus from the works of a "gay issues" scientist is to reduce in your mind his full capacity to understand all the studies that he has seen. They already drew a consensus and continue to refine a theory as time goes on. To add your consensus is spurious.

Again, whatever do you mean? Spuriously adding my consensus to the reduced capacity of a gay issues scientist to understand all the studies he has seen? You're making my head spin.

Counter: I love the healed amputees line. They apparently are "rare" in that they occur throughout time in clusters around particularly holy priests. Other incurable diseases have no hope of proving anything. Are we are supposed believe that a person who is healthy will prove something when a doctors opinion that someone with Parkinson's was spontaneously healed does not. It is a pointless discussion. If you are too skeptical, what is the point. If your own arm grew back, that would probably be enough?

I'm trying to understand. Is this a really long way of saying: Even if God performed a miracle and grew someone's arm back that skpetics wouldn't believe it, so there's no point in God doing so?

 

[fated]

What's your point? That a lesbian should enter into a relationship with a man in the hopes that eventually, over time, she'll develop an attraction for that man which will rid her of her gayness?

What do you mean, "unnatural"?

What's ridiculous is this statement. What in the heck are you talking about? The propensity to choose to like boys and a monogomous relationship could "have traditional couples"? Your prose is impenetrable, and your point, elusive.

Again, whatever do you mean? Spuriously adding my consensus to the reduced capacity of a gay issues scientist to understand all the studies he has seen? You're making my head spin.

I'm trying to understand. Is this a really long way of saying: Even if God performed a miracle and grew someone's arm back that skpetics wouldn't believe it, so there's no point in God doing so?

1)I never said the relationship would "rid" them of their "gayness." Isn't it ridiculous to assert that this could be done? Someone seems to have added that to my statement.

2)unnatural prevalence as in "most"

3)Perhaps you should read it a couple of times before responding.

4)Often, I hear people say that there is "no choice" as to whether or not one is "gay." I have yet to see a scientist draw this conclusion. It is very disrespectful to assert your own conclusions over his consensus of the science he has seen.

5)You added that too.