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

[fated]

Then, if that's the case I don't see why a very small percentage of the population who mistakenly identify as exclusively homosexual can't "change" their sexual orientation. It makes perfect sense to me and explains why the majority of gays say that they cannot change. It's a simple case of mistaken identity, as it were.

You can't determine whether or not this is true by a consensus of those who do not do something.

If you asked crack addicts if it was possible to quit crack and 50% of them said no, would you believe them? It becomes a question of just how free is free will... Which is what the APA and other organizations are essentially exploring. They are attempting refute a "null hypothesis" in studies of "free choice."

Their goal is then to refute free will, or attempt to quantify and qualify how it is not free. When prevalence (%) is discussed, we get some weighting, but it struggles with the same difficulties as the crack addict problem above.

 

[selfinflikted]

You can't determine whether or not this is true by a consensus of those who do not do something.

If you asked crack addicts if it was possible to quit crack and 50% of them said no, would you believe them? It becomes a question of just how free is free will... Which is what the APA and other organizations are essentially exploring. They are attempting refute a "null hypothesis" in studies of "free choice."

Their goal is then to refute free will, or attempt to quantify and qualify how it is not free. When prevalence (%) is discussed, we get some weighting, but it struggles with the same difficulties as the crack addict problem above.

Not really. Your analogy doesn't fly because either you are or you aren't a crack addict... and I don't think there's any mistaking that. Thing is with sexuality, it's very vague - there are polar opposites, and everything in between.

 

[fated]

Not really. Your analogy doesn't fly because either you are or you aren't a crack addict... and I don't think there's any mistaking that. Thing is with sexuality, it's very vague - there are polar opposites, and everything in between.

Everyone is a crack addict. Some people just haven't tried crack. For others, it will take a little while to really enjoy crack.

Can you quit crack?

 

[selfinflikted]

Everyone is a crack addict. Some people just haven't tried crack. For others, it will take a little while to really enjoy crack.

Can you quit crack?

Nope. I can see where this is going, and it still doesn't work.

 

[fated]

Nope. I can see where this is going, and it still doesn't work.

The problem we have is that sexual orientation is an impossible to measure except by discerning someone using their reflections on their thoughts and perceptions. In some cases they use "excitation" data, but the manner of measuring it surely cuts down on its accuracy.

 

[fated]

Nope. I can see where this is going, and it still doesn't work.

We could go at it from the other side, from a Catholic perspective. From the Catholic perspective, there is nothing innately wrong with being attracted to someone of the same sex. Instead it is gravely sinful to act out in a homosexual manner.


It is also sinful to "contemplate such activity" and to touch while doing so. Further, it is sinful to participate in sexual activity with any partner whatsoever, unless you are married.

I assume this celibate existence would make most people see heterosexuality as the best option, given no other options, except continued celibacy.

So, marriage would be entered into, after some romance, and hopefully falling in love. Loving someone is possible with or without sexual attraction. Though, one could infer that to a celibate person attraction would be in plentiful supply, at least in the short run.

The marriage, would be monogamous and impossible to break.

That is the idea situation, as is likely one of the best ways to nurture feelings, as it were, for a particular person.


This may seem foreign to an atheist as to "why" one would want to or have to do such a thing. But, I hope you found it interesting.

 

[Kaelestis721]

I fail to understand the reasoning behind your prolonged arguments. Regardless of the % of homosexuals that have the abilites to change sexual orientation or not...

Why does it matter and why should we be looking into forcing them into a role that the society or religious sect deems acceptable rather then what they are comfortable with? At least when their lifestyle has little to no real effect on our well being.

 

[selfinflikted]

We could go at it from the other side, from a Catholic perspective. From the Catholic perspective, there is nothing innately wrong with being attracted to someone of the same sex. Instead it is gravely sinful to act out in a homosexual manner.


It is also sinful to "contemplate such activity" and to touch while doing so. Further, it is sinful to participate in sexual activity with any partner whatsoever, unless you are married.

I assume this celibate existence would make most people see heterosexuality as the best option, given no other options, except continued celibacy.

So, marriage would be entered into, after some romance, and hopefully falling in love. Loving someone is possible with or without sexual attraction. Though, one could infer that to a celibate person attraction would be in plentiful supply, at least in the short run.

The marriage, would be monogamous and impossible to break.

That is the idea situation, as is likely one of the best ways to nurture feelings, as it were, for a particular person.


This may seem foreign to an atheist as to "why" one would want to or have to do such a thing. But, I hope you found it interesting.

Not really interesting so much as repulsive. Think about what you just said. You want a self-proclaimed gay man to enter into a relationship with a member of the opposite sex to try and "nurture" feelings of heterosexuality.

Point 1) How are you going to find a member of the opposite sex to participate in this deceit?

Point 2) How is this fair at all to the other party involved knowing that the whole thing would be a sham?

Point 3) The whole relationship wouldn't be founded on the feelings usually associated with marriage.

Point 4) The relationship would be destined to failure.

Point 5) This whole arguement is ludicrous, to the highest.

 

[Ramona]

Not really interesting so much as repulsive. Think about what you just said. You want a self-proclaimed gay man to enter into a relationship with a member of the opposite sex to try and "nurture" feelings of heterosexuality.

You're right, Selfi. It is a really heartbreaking thing for all sides of the relationship. I know this because my mother, who is a lesbian, fell into this trap. It is a horrible falsehood and only leaves people in pain.

Point 1) How are you going to find a member of the opposite sex to participate in this deceit?

Usually the "partner" is not aware of the "subject's" sexual orientation. Usually a gay person will enter a romantic relationship with a member of the opposite sex in hope of squandering their attractions to the same sex, and therefore they choose not to inform their straight partner of the situation.

Point 2) How is this fair at all to the other party involved knowing that the whole thing would be a sham?

It isn't. Period. End of story.

Point 3) The whole relationship wouldn't be founded on the feelings usually associated with marriage.

Point 4) The relationship would be destined to failure.

Point 5) This whole arguement is ludicrous, to the highest.

There's nothing left to say. You have it covered.

The point is, homosexuals will never truly be "converted" to heterosexuality. Some bisexuals may become convinced to confine their relationships only to members of the opposite sex. Some homosexuals may feel bullied into celibacy, and live a life alone, without a loving partner. Others still will pretend to be heterosexual, and these relationships will fail.

The only thing that reparative "therapy" leads to is heartbreak...and for a few - but still far too many - suicide.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

You're right, Selfi. It is a really heartbreaking thing for all sides of the relationship. I know this because my mother, who is a lesbian, fell into this trap. It is a horrible falsehood and only leaves people in pain.



Usually the "partner" is not aware of the "subject's" sexual orientation. Usually a gay person will enter a romantic relationship with a member of the opposite sex in hope of squandering their attractions to the same sex, and therefore they choose not to inform their straight partner of the situation.



It isn't. Period. End of story.



There's nothing left to say. You have it covered.

The point is, homosexuals will never truly be "converted" to heterosexuality. Some bisexuals may become convinced to confine their relationships only to members of the opposite sex. Some homosexuals may feel bullied into celibacy, and live a life alone, without a loving partner. Others still will pretend to be heterosexual, and these relationships will fail.

The only thing that reparative "therapy" leads to is heartbreak...and for a few - but still far too many - suicide.

Well said !!! Thanks for sharing your family's pain as personal as it is..it will help some that read this.

 

[fated]

I fail to understand the reasoning behind your prolonged arguments. Regardless of the % of homosexuals that have the abilites to change sexual orientation or not...

Why does it matter and why should we be looking into forcing them into a role that the society or religious sect deems acceptable rather then what they are comfortable with? At least when their lifestyle has little to no real effect on our well being.

That is not what the discussion has been about. But, as to whether or not people can change their orientation.

 

[fated]

You're right, Selfi. It is a really heartbreaking thing for all sides of the relationship. I know this because my mother, who is a lesbian, fell into this trap. It is a horrible falsehood and only leaves people in pain.



Usually the "partner" is not aware of the "subject's" sexual orientation. Usually a gay person will enter a romantic relationship with a member of the opposite sex in hope of squandering their attractions to the same sex, and therefore they choose not to inform their straight partner of the situation.



It isn't. Period. End of story.



There's nothing left to say. You have it covered.

The point is, homosexuals will never truly be "converted" to heterosexuality. Some bisexuals may become convinced to confine their relationships only to members of the opposite sex. Some homosexuals may feel bullied into celibacy, and live a life alone, without a loving partner. Others still will pretend to be heterosexual, and these relationships will fail.

The only thing that reparative "therapy" leads to is heartbreak...and for a few - but still far too many - suicide.

Probably would have been a lot easier without the huge lie.

 

[beechy]

That is not what the discussion has been about. But, as to whether or not people can change their orientation.

I'd like to wipe the slate clean for a second from the twisted maze of previous posts and ask you for your cleanest, simplest answer to that question, that is:

Do you believe that a gay person can become straight?

 

[fated]

I'd like to wipe the slate clean for a second from the twisted maze of previous posts and ask you for your cleanest, simplest answer to that question, that is:

Do you believe that a gay person can become straight?

More likely bisexual by the APA's definition.

 

[Kaelestis721]

That is not what the discussion has been about. But, as to whether or not people can change their orientation.

What I'm really asking is why discuss it at all? With all the world issues going on from war to genocide to diseases to poverty...I have to question the reasoning behind being concerned with something that has little to no real effect (in comparison to the mentioned issues) on a majority of ppl's lives worldwide.

 

[fated]

What I'm really asking is why discuss it at all? With all the world issues going on from war to genocide to diseases to poverty...I have to question the reasoning behind being concerned with something that has little to no real effect (in comparison to the mentioned issues) on a majority of ppl's lives worldwide.

Shouldn't you ask the OP?

 

[Kaelestis721]

You and the atheist seem to be the ones carrying on the topic of conversation currently...It's a question in general, but since you are present I guess you are who receives it.

 

[fated]

You and the atheist seem to be the ones carrying on the topic of conversation currently...It's a question in general, but since you are present I guess you are who receives it.

Well, I answered, because the question exists. And, because I have read considerable things about human sexuality. So, I thought I would share my thoughts on the matter.

Why it is important:
It is important to understanding people, why they are like they are, and how they act. This topic has all of those things going for it. Especially because some people don't see the research as clearly as I do.

That is to say, people get involved in what is said, when all that is unknown is contained in what is not said.

There is also the point to remember of how the experiment is designed, and I designed experiments.

I've also done statistics...etc.

Not that people with their mind set on what this science is going to end up saying will usually listen, but surely the research if far from done.

 

[beechy]

More likely bisexual by the APA's definition.

Clarification please. Are you saying you think it is more likely that a bisexual can become straight, or that a gay person who becomes straight was actually a bisexual in the first place?

 

[MrPirate]

That is not what the discussion has been about. But, as to whether or not people can change their orientation.

Then the discussion should have ended long ago as the answer is clearly no people cannot change sexual orientation.