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

[trunks2k]

Anyone else find it funny that "busting the myth that gays can't change" amounted to nothing more than saying "yes they can!"

Usually when you bust a myth you're going to show evidence of some sort that the myth is false, not just say it.

 

[NeTrips]

Okay, but to begin with smoker is a different word, using different phonemes, meant to convey a different meaning from homosexual. A smoker is very easily defined as "one who smokes." The word is put together in a different manner than homosexual (as the suffix -er denotes something, or someone who does something). In the same vein there are also ex-baseball players, and ex-telemarketers.

As for ex-addicts, you're right, there are in fact none. Once an addict, always an addict. A smoker can stop smoking, but can never stop actually being addicted to nicotine. Such is the nature of addiction.

In the end, you compare smoker, addict, and homosexual as though they are similar in their conveyed meanings. They aren't. They don't share the prefixes, roots, or suffixes. They are not meant to be similar.

good points.

(not to convey any negative connotations, judgement, or similarities below, just following this discussion)

since we have recovering addicts (those resisting the urge or temptation of whichever drug they were/are addicted to), is it possible to have recovering homosexuals (those resisting the urge or temptation of same sex activity/attraction)?

 

[NeTrips]

As is often noted.....

mp- The qualification for determining success in the study being discussed is the absense of same sex attraction. This discussion has moved on from there, and is now discussing if that qualification is possible. Consider if anyone can truly be called an ex-addict or a recovering addict. It has been stated that once and addict always an addict, the urge or desire never totally goes away but a person can stay clean for the rest of their life.

Please join us.

 

[marblehead]

I didn't know that being gay is the same as being an addict.

 

[five]

It's generally refered to as "coming out" or "embracing their homosexuality" when a person who has lived as a heterosexual changes and enters into a homosexual lifestyle.

haha what? wow...

 

[MrPirate]

mp- The qualification for determining success in the study being discussed is the absense of same sex attraction.

Even if this were the case and not a desperate attempt at moving the goalposts Spitzer demonstrated the failure of ex-gays.

You brought up the Spitzer study and now you pretend you don’t wish to talk about its monumental failings...why?

not comfy with the facts?

This discussion has moved on from there,

No…it is still about the myth that any homosexual has changed into a heterosexual.

Evidence that anyone has changed form homosexual (Kinsey scale 6) to heterosexual (Kinsey scale 0) absolutely none.

As noted the people Spitzer found failed miserably at “absence of same sex attraction” and remember these were the same people the various ex-gay ministries claimed were “successes”
Of those claiming some sort of change…well all were getting paid based on that claim…making said claims worthless.

and is now discussing if that qualification is possible.

And Spitzer shows there are no “successes”.

Please join us.

If ex-gay ministries and their supporters want to claim something about “changing” sexual oriention, then they need to actually produce evidence about such change.
After thirty five years and claims of “hundreds of thousands” of homosexuals “transformed” into heterosexuals ex-gay ministries have yet to provide ANY evidence of such a change. All they have produced are damaged people, lies and individuals who once they escape the ex-gay ministry admit lying about the whole thing.

 

[flicka]

By equating homosexuals to addicts of any sort you are basically admitting they can't change, but that you just want them to act different ....for your benefit.

 

[AuraTwilight]

In my opinion, it's not a matter of "Can they change?" but more "Should they change?"

Your deity/morals can say whatever they want to, but by definition, if no harm is done, it is perfectly moral, or atleast not immoral. If someone is unhappy being gay, then sure, they can change. If they're happy being gay, no one, not even Almighty God, has any right to tell them they need to change.

 

[KomissarSteve]

mp- The qualification for determining success in the study being discussed is the absense of same sex attraction.

Correct, and you have not scientifically demonstrated a lack of same-sex attraction. What you HAVE demonstrated is their claims to a lack of same-sex attraction - but as we discussed in the previous thread on this topic, that is not the same as scientifically measuring their level of attraction to the same sex.

 

[m9lc]

In my opinion, it's not a matter of "Can they change?" but more "Should they change?"

Your deity/morals can say whatever they want to, but by definition, if no harm is done, it is perfectly moral, or atleast not immoral. If someone is unhappy being gay, then sure, they can change. If they're happy being gay, no one, not even Almighty God, has any right to tell them they need to change.

Bingo. Even if homosexuality weren't inborn, that doesn't mean that it's wrong in any way, any more than painting your bedroom blue is wrong.

 

[NeTrips]

Even if this were the case and not a desperate attempt at moving the goalposts Spitzer demonstrated the failure of ex-gays.

You brought up the Spitzer study and now you pretend you don’t wish to talk about its monumental failings...why?

not comfy with the facts?





No…it is still about the myth that any homosexual has changed into a heterosexual.

Evidence that anyone has changed form homosexual (Kinsey scale 6) to heterosexual (Kinsey scale 0) absolutely none.

As noted the people Spitzer found failed miserably at “absence of same sex attraction” and remember these were the same people the various ex-gay ministries claimed were “successes”
Of those claiming some sort of change…well all were getting paid based on that claim…making said claims worthless.


And Spitzer shows there are no “successes”.




If ex-gay ministries and their supporters want to claim something about “changing” sexual oriention, then they need to actually produce evidence about such change.
After thirty five years and claims of “hundreds of thousands” of homosexuals “transformed” into heterosexuals ex-gay ministries have yet to provide ANY evidence of such a change. All they have produced are damaged people, lies and individuals who once they escape the ex-gay ministry admit lying about the whole thing.

refer to the OP

 

[NeTrips]

In my opinion, it's not a matter of "Can they change?" but more "Should they change?"

Your deity/morals can say whatever they want to, but by definition, if no harm is done, it is perfectly moral, or atleast not immoral. If someone is unhappy being gay, then sure, they can change. If they're happy being gay, no one, not even Almighty God, has any right to tell them they need to change.

are you truely defining moral as the absense of harm? lol

 

[AuraTwilight]

are you truely defining moral as the absense of harm? lol

By "Harm" I meant "Suffering and unhappiness of any sort that the deed-doer should be held responsible for."

The fact that you're not is a terrible thing to hear. What's morality if not "What's right for everyone involved?" Oh right, I forgot, you're one of those people who defines morality as whatever your God says it is regardless of circumstances or what the deed actually is, which isn't so much morality as it is a form of tyranny, however benevolent it may be.

 

[NeTrips]

Correct, and you have not scientifically demonstrated a lack of same-sex attraction. What you HAVE demonstrated is their claims to a lack of same-sex attraction - but as we discussed in the previous thread on this topic, that is not the same as scientifically measuring their level of attraction to the same sex.

hey, relax for a second. your cohort made the claim that not quite 3% are capable of orientation change and i am taking her on her word. Please clarify for me, it appears you are calling her a liar now?

 

[KomissarSteve]

hey, relax for a second. your cohort made the claim that not quite 3% are capable of orientation change and i am taking her on her word. Please clarify for me, it appears you are calling her a liar now?

I'm stating that I think she's being overly generous in her assessment of the study.

I'm also, in a couple lines, completely obliterating any evidence you might think exists in support of the ex-gay movement.

And what's with the "relax for a second" line? Nothing in my posts would suggest that I'm anything but relaxed.

 

[NeTrips]

By "Harm" I meant "Suffering and unhappiness of any sort that the deed-doer should be held responsible for."

that definition is ridiculous. By this ridiculous definition, anyone responsible for making a child unhappy has harmed them. There sure are going to be long lines at the candy counter if this definition is embraced. lol

What's morality if not "What's right for everyone involved?"

another ridiculous statement. By this standard, morality would be a moving target, it would change based on the players. Kind of like nailing jello to a tree.

Oh right, I forgot, you're one of those people who defines morality as whatever your God says it is regardless of circumstances or what the deed actually is, which isn't so much morality as it is a form of tyranny, however benevolent it may be.

Does the quoted text conform with your morality of not trying to cause unhappiness? Or does your def of morality not apply if the unhappiness is only felt by those one is prejudiced against?

 

[NeTrips]

I'm also, in a couple lines, completely obliterating any evidence you might think exists in support of the ex-gay movement.

I keep missing that.

And what's with the "relax for a second" line? Nothing in my posts would suggest that I'm anything but relaxed.

my bad. I must have read into your choice of words. One of the inherant problems with the internet... sorry.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I keep missing that.

Yeah, we noticed.

my bad. I must have read into your choice of words. One of the inherant problems with the internet... sorry.

*shrugs* Hey, it happens.

 

[AuraTwilight]

that definition is ridiculous. By this ridiculous definition, anyone responsible for making a child unhappy has harmed them. There sure are going to be long lines at the candy counter if this definition is embraced. lol

Read the definition again. "Unhappiness that the Deed Doer can be reasonably held accountable for."

It's not the candy store's fault a child can't get some candy. It is a murderer's fault for inflicting suffering to the murdered individual and their loved ones.

another ridiculous statement. By this standard, morality would be a moving target, it would change based on the players. Kind of like nailing jello to a tree.

Morality DOES change based on the players. You wouldn't hold the same exact morality for two consenting adults getting married as you would an adult trying to marry an innocent child, would you?

Does the quoted text conform with your morality of not trying to cause unhappiness? Or does your def of morality not apply if the unhappiness is only felt by those one is prejudiced against?

There's bigger problems to worry about if you feel suffering on par with that as the family of a murder victim over my own personal opinion.

 

[jayem]

are you truely defining moral as the absense of harm? lol

That's certainly a big part of it, at least in reference to this issue. If an individual homosexual feels that his attraction to same-sex persons is psychologically intolerable (it's ego-dystonic, as the Freudians say), then he can seek out ways to better adjust to it, or to reverse his attraction, if possible. But that should come from him. There is no reason why society should make it a moral obligation for all homosexuals to change themselves.



BTW: Re. that 3% of homosexuals who reportedly did change...does that mean they no longer like Judy Garland, or Broadway musicals?