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

[NeTrips]

Another CF'er posted that

Dr. Spitzer has even claimed, as a result of his study, that less than 3% are capable of an orientation change.

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.

 

[The Bellman]

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

No, it hasn't been 'debunked', and no, it hasn't been demonstrated that it is possible to change from homosexual to heterosexual. The vast majority of evidence indicates that it's not possible.

 

[quatona]

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

Care to provide a source for the claim that there can be change from heterosexual to homosexual?
Just to make sure we are not dealing with strawmen here.

 

[NeTrips]

Care to provide a source for the claim that there can be change from heterosexual to homosexual?
Just to make sure we are not dealing with strawmen here.

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.

 

[marblehead]

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.

Switch that argument to be directed at heterosexuals rather than homosexuals and you can see how absurd and offensive your argument is.

Do you believe that you can change from heterosexual to homosexual? Should you receive treatment to become homosexual?

 

[NeTrips]

Should you receive treatment to become homosexual?

No thanks. I have more than enough temptations to sin as it is now, no need to add others.

 

[levi501]

Why does this even matter?

I don't need a study to believe that a very small part of the population depending on the environmental stimulus can in fact change their sexuality.

I agree with the OP, in that it's a myth that people can't change. However, the percentage of people that can and do are so miniscule that it's pointless to discuss.

 

[Aquamarine81]

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.

"Coming out" just means a person has accepted their homosexuality and is willing to tell others they are homosexual -- it doesn't mean they were heterosexual before coming out. No one wakes up one day and decides they are homosexual. There are still some homosexuals who are living a heterosexual life, some even marrying someone of the opposite sex -- because of the fear their family and friends will reject them or judge them.
3% is a very small number -- that still leaves over 97% who can't change.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

That is not a change from heterosexuality to homosexuality. Ever heard of denial?

 

[NeTrips]

There are still some homosexuals who are living a heterosexual life, some even marrying someone of the opposite sex....

Interesting point. Perhaps the term "homosexual" needs to be defined here. Is it a person with homosexual urges, a person engaging in homosexual sex, or perhaps another definition?

A person who smokes is commonly referred to as a smoker. A person who quit smoking is not a smoker but still has urges to smoke.

Is it the actions or the urges that define the person?

3% is a very small number -- that still leaves over 97% who can't change.

Or from another perspective, 97% who have not changed. I wonder at what point or after how long a period of trying can the possibility of change be ruled impossible....

 

[NeTrips]

Ever heard of denial?

yes, but what does that have to do with this discussion?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

yes, but what does that have to do with this discussion?

You claimed that the 'coming out' process is synonymous with heterosexuals changing to homosexuals. I explained why this was not so. My comment on denial was part of this explanation.
Partial quotation is hardly honest behaviour.

 

[JGG]

A person who smokes is commonly referred to as a smoker. A person who quit smoking is not a smoker but still has urges to smoke.

Yes, because a smoker is someone who smokes, in much the same way that a candlestick maker, is someone who makes candlesticks, and a baker is someone who bakes. The word smoker is very literally meant to describe an action that someone performs.

Is it the actions or the urges that define the person?

Neither. Why do you only want to define these people based on their sexual preference? Its not like you define people by being smokers.

 

[NeTrips]

Why do you only want to define these people based on their sexual preference? Its not like you define people by being smokers.

how would YOU define a homosexual? I am interested to see if you base your definition on urges or actions or something else, some combination perhaps.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, because a smoker is someone who smokes, in much the same way that a candlestick maker, is someone who makes candlesticks, and a baker is someone who bakes. The word smoker is very literally meant to describe an action that someone performs.

I don't believe he was discussing semantics.

Neither. Why do you only want to define these people based on their sexual preference? Its not like you define people by being smokers.

It does when discussing demographs. If we want to know the demograph of smokers, we must first define what we mean by 'smoker'. Likewise, when we want to know the demograph of homosexuals, we need to know just what we consider a 'homosexual' to be. It is the act, or the urge? In the former scenario, it is the act. In the latter, it is the urge.

 

[JGG]

how would YOU define a homosexual? I am interested to see if you base your definition on urges or actions or something else, some combination perhaps.

Someone who is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex.

 

[JGG]

I don't believe he was discussing semantics.

We're discussing the meaning, and interpretation of words? That's what semantics is.

It does when discussing demographs. If we want to know the demograph of smokers, we must first define what we mean by 'smoker'. Likewise, when we want to know the demograph of homosexuals, we need to know just what we consider a 'homosexual' to be. It is the act, or the urge? In the former scenario, it is the act. In the latter, it is the urge.

Then his question should have been: " Is it the actions or the urges that defines "homosexual?" Not "the person."

 

[NeTrips]

Someone who is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex.

Interesting. In that case then I would have to agree that there may be very few ex-gays, but there would equally be very few ex-smokers, ex-addicts, etc.

 

[JGG]

Interesting. In that case then I would have to agree that there may be very few ex-gays, but there would equally be very few ex-smokers, ex-addicts, etc.

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.

 

[MrPirate]

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.

As is often noted, and usually ignored by people with particular agendas, the Spitzer study not only failed peer review but was flawed beyond reason.
The primary reason for is failing peer review (and not coincidentally it chief flaw) was the sampling, method Spitzer used. Spitzer’s turned to said sampling method out of desperation, but that doesn’t excuse his poor judgment in doing so. Spitzer went hunting for individuals who claimed to have changed sexual oriention…he couldn’t find any. So he turned to the various ex-gay ministries and asked for referrals of people who have “changed” Despite the claims of “hundreds of thousands” of individuals who have “changed” they could only provide Spitzer with 143 "ex-gays" and 57 "ex-lesbians"

So of the 200 people ex-gay ministries claimed were “success” 86% had not changed sexual oriention. (so much for success)

And what do all the people claiming change in the Spitzer study have in common? They were all employed in the “ex-gay” movement. Their livelihood depended on the ex-gay myth.

It is for similar reasons why when a new drug is being tested employees of the pharmaceutical company manufacturing the new drug are not participants in the trials as their paychecks are dependant on the good results of that study.

Some other problems of the Spitzer study include the fact that he didn’t establish the beginning sexual oriention of the participants. So there was no way of knowing who was gay who was bisexual and who was straight to begin with. It is known that ten of the “success” were married (to members of the opposite gender) before they entered into therapy…which is a good indication they weren’t homosexual at all.

After more than 35 years in business ex-gay ministries have yet to produce anything showing that what they do is in any way effective. they have produced no studies, they decline to produce statistics about the “successes” and failures and they cannot even demonstrate that what they do isn’t actively harmful.

If ex-gay ministries and their supporters want to claim something about “changing” sexual oriention, then they need to actually produce evidence and so far they have produced nothing but damaged people and individuals who once they escape the ex-gay ministry admit lying about the whole thing.