Prove me wrong Phobes, a challenge, I'm calling you OUT.

[cantata]

Personally, the important part is testable change in orientation, in whatever form that takes. If a person starts off with no attraction to the same sex, but after the process they do, that would be very, very interesting.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I'm one of these people. I went from straight to bisexual over three years.

 

[Merlin]

Nope. I'm saying I don't think change is possible. And I don't want to anyway. I'm also saying to those that think it is: Change, then I'll be proved wrong.

So, you're admitting it would be pointless, as you have no desire to change anyway.

 

[Spherical Time]

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I'm one of these people. I went from straight to bisexual over three years.

Possibly, but did they do the attraction and blood flow tests before you started, in order to confirm that there was an actual change?

It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just looking for a controlled scientific experiment to be done.

 

[Khameo]

Well see that's wherein lies the trouble. Ex-gay therapy isn't about making gays straight or helping them cope with being faced with a life of isolation and celibacy always marked by the suspicious glares of "normal" "Christians". Its about giving false-hope to the parents of a gay or lesbian child, and making money while feeling morally superior. In short, Ex-gay therapy is to treat straight peoples' problem with gay people.

Also, this.

Does anyone have that video of the Exodus co-founders(?) publicly apologizing for their deceit?

 

[DieHappy]

Bingo, you also get a cookie. The so-called ex-gays are nothing of the sort. They're still as gay as a box of birds, they're just pretending they arent.

You're suffering from semantical schizophrenia:

The man is not bald anymore.

 

[Khameo]

Never mind, I found it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiYeJ_bsQo

 

[Trevorocity]

I am not, and neither am I.

You're suffering from semantical schizophrenia:

 

[cantata]

Possibly, but did they do the attraction and blood flow tests before you started, in order to confirm that there was an actual change?

It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just looking for a controlled scientific experiment to be done.

No, they didn't. Your position is, of course, entirely reasonable.

I have no problem with a scientifically rigorous approach. I just don't like the out-and-out claim that no person has ever changed their sexuality, voluntarily or otherwise, or the implication that everyone who claims to have changed is a liar. Frankly, I think it's silly to make claims like that, because it only takes one person to prove you wrong; and it isn't fair, either. You (not you personally; one) risk alienating and marginalising anyone who doesn't fit into the box. I believe that with something as personal and emotionally charged as sexuality, it's important to recognise that people's self-identification is important. Any labels like "bisexual", "lesbian", "homosexual", or "gay" are artificial, which is why I dislike people being told, "You're a latent lesbian," "You're a confused bisexual," &c., just as much as I dislike people being told, "You chose your sexual orientation," "You're gay because you have bad parents," &c. That's why I personally prefer to call myself "queer", and why I support a diverse and holistic understanding of sexual development and orientation.

It makes me sad that a lot of queer people are very enthusiastic about welcoming everyone into the fold, until someone doesn't fit the born-queer mould (or the proud-queer mould, or the no-longer-queer mould, or whatever; and that's not to mention bi-invisibility). I understand why the hostility is there, but I don't think that queer-by-choice people necessarily deserve it.

Anyway, sorry, /rant.

 

[Spherical Time]

No, they didn't. Your position is, of course, entirely reasonable.

I have no problem with a scientifically rigorous approach. I just don't like the out-and-out claim that no person has ever changed their sexuality, voluntarily or otherwise, or the implication that everyone who claims to have changed is a liar.

Actually, I do believe that some people have fluid sexualities. I've certainly known people that have gone back and forth. I envy them. However, on the other side, I do think it's impossible for most people.

It makes me sad that a lot of queer people are very enthusiastic about welcoming everyone into the fold, until someone doesn't fit the born-queer mould (or the proud-queer mould, or the no-longer-queer mould, or whatever; and that's not to mention bi-invisibility). I understand why the hostility is there, but I don't think that queer-by-choice people necessarily deserve it.

Anyway, sorry, /rant.

Eh. That's always been a problem in the GLBATOQQS . . . community.

I think the problem is that people assume that if their specific label isn't mentioned, it won't be welcome. If it only says "Gay-Straight Alliance," that means that lesbians aren't allowed to attend the meetings.

No matter how many labels that you try to add, you're always going to overlook someone, and then people get upset that they aren't listed.

Really, I've never really separated out the born-queer, now-queer, but that doesn't mean that I'm hostile to them. It just means that I haven't yet needed to recognize it.

 

[cantata]

Actually, I do believe that some people have fluid sexualities. I've certainly known people that have gone back and forth. I envy them. However, on the other side, I do think it's impossible for most people.

I agree with you.

That said, I think it's possible for more people than you might think, although probably not desirable.

Eh. That's always been a problem in the GLBATOQQS . . . community.

I think the problem is that people assume that if their specific label isn't mentioned, it won't be welcome. If it only says "Gay-Straight Alliance," that means that lesbians aren't allowed to attend the meetings.

No matter how many labels that you try to add, you're always going to overlook someone, and then people get upset that they aren't listed.

No no, I'm not talking about not having the labels in there. That's a matter of practicality and I'm not offended by it. I'm talking about out-and-out (no play on words intended) hostility that I have experienced directly from various people, either because of my bisexuality or my queer-by-choice status. I never assume people are hostile until they actually behave in a hostile fashion, and by hostile I mean having people say things like "You have no right to call yourself queer" or "You are lying to yourself" or "You are not a real bisexual" or "You're just greedy." As I said before, I can completely understand why this hostility is there, but I don't think that makes it okay. It actually really hurts.

Really, I've never really separated out the born-queer, now-queer, but that doesn't mean that I'm hostile to them. It just means that I haven't yet needed to recognize it.

No, I don't think there's a need to because I don't think it's an important distinction. But it does make me uncomfortable when the primary argument in favour of LGBT&c. rights seems to be "It's not our fault." And it seems to be an important distinction to some people, because they are willing to call queer-by-choice people liars.

 

[Spherical Time]

No no, I'm not talking about not having the labels in there. That's a matter of practicality and I'm not offended by it. I'm talking about out-and-out (no play on words intended) hostility that I have experienced directly from various people, either because of my bisexuality or my queer-by-choice status. I never assume people are hostile until they actually behave in a hostile fashion, and by hostile I mean having people say things like "You have no right to call yourself queer" or "You are lying to yourself" or "You are not a real bisexual" or "You're just greedy." As I said before, I can completely understand why this hostility is there, but I don't think that makes it okay. It actually really hurts.

Well, that's a tough one. I definitely understand why people get upset: If you can change, then that seems to suggest that they can change too. That's a sensitive subject in the &c. community, because of all of the attempts at forcing change and denial of our existence that we've all been through.

I also understand why it hurts to be told that you're lying to yourself. After all, I'm an atheist posting on CF. I've certainly been told that before.

The best thing that we can do is have a calm and rational conversation, and that is a very, very difficult thing to do sometimes.

No, I don't think there's a need to because I don't think it's an important distinction. But it does make me uncomfortable when the primary argument in favour of LGBT&c. rights seems to be "It's not our fault." And it seems to be an important distinction to some people, because they are willing to call queer-by-choice people liars.

I've decided that instead of trying to post all of the letters for an acronym, I'm just going to call it the &c. community. Or, at least until I forget.

 

[Maren]

Or, he changed, voluntarily or involuntarily, as some people do.

Why do we have to have a name for everything?

I didn't say that he didn't change, I merely said it is unlikely. Even in your case, you did not go from heterosexual only to homosexual only -- evidence tells us that kind of change is extremely rare and maybe even not possible. Instead, it is highly likely that he still has attractions to both sexes.

I'd likely agree with you about the labels other than the Christians who try to claim that anyone can do a complete change from homosexual to heterosexual, where they have zero attraction to the same sex. And because they try to claim this about everyone, then most of us feel a need to point out that kind of change is possible.

Personally, I tend to think sexual orientation is something closer to what Fritz Klein suggested and that many people do have some malleability in sexual orientation.

 

[cantata]

Well, that's a tough one. I definitely understand why people get upset: If you can change, then that seems to suggest that they can change too. That's a sensitive subject in the &c. community, because of all of the attempts at forcing change and denial of our existence that we've all been through.

Yes, exactly. I absolutely sympathise with these feelings. I've had a lot of conversations about them, and I understand why they're there and why queer-by-choice people are seen as a threat.

I'd emphasise that a) I'm under no illusions that everyone is able to change; b) I think change is only ever going to be possible if undertaken for positive rather than negative reasons; and c) I of course don't think that anyone should feel obliged to try to change.

I also understand why it hurts to be told that you're lying to yourself. After all, I'm an atheist posting on CF. I've certainly been told that before.

Yarr, it sucks. It took a long time to come out and admit that I chose, in fact, and that was a more painful process, in many ways, than changing in the first place.

The best thing that we can do is have a calm and rational conversation, and that is a very, very difficult thing to do sometimes.

I'm very much in favour of calm and rational conversation. It can be difficult, yes. But it is extremely rewarding when you don't get shouted down.

I've decided that instead of trying to post all of the letters for an acronym, I'm just going to call it the &c. community. Or, at least until I forget.

Nice! I'm such a trendsetter

I didn't say that he didn't change, I merely said it is unlikely. Even in your case, you did not go from heterosexual only to homosexual only -- evidence tells us that kind of change is extremely rare and maybe even not possible. Instead, it is highly likely that he still has attractions to both sexes.

I'd likely agree with you about the labels other than the Christians who try to claim that anyone can do a complete change from homosexual to heterosexual, where they have zero attraction to the same sex. And because they try to claim this about everyone, then most of us feel a need to point out that kind of change is possible.

Personally, I tend to think sexual orientation is something closer to what Fritz Klein suggested and that many people do have some malleability in sexual orientation.

Fair enough.

I think perhaps involuntary change from one thing to another is possible, and I also think that the attention one gives to men or women is enough to qualify you as straight rather than gay and vice versa at a given time. Of course, without asking the guy, we can't know. I'm just disinclined to be hasty about telling him (metaphorically speaking) what the state of his sexuality is, isn't, and can't possibly be, for obvious reasons.

My hope is that eventually we'll be able to eschew the labels and just have a good time without worrying which box we fit into, but that's probably at least half a decade away.

 

[Trevorocity]

Or four: he changed, either voluntarily or involuntarily, as some people do.

Why do there need to be labels for everything? Why can't there be anomalies which don't support a general point? Why can't everyone just be more sensible about this issue?

People's self-identification is what matters. This guy identified as straight-then-gay-then-straight? Then that's what he was. Why does that pain you so much? It doesn't mean anyone and everyone can and/or should change. It just means that he did.

I really hate it when people deny others' experiences. Here I am, a bisexual person who actively chose bisexuality over heterosexuality. I notice that I get quietly ignored. Why? Because I don't fit? Because I'm not important? Do you think I'm a liar? Or am I just inconvenient?

Alright then. Let me come at you from a different angle then (the fundy angle). Since you just chose to become bisexual your sinful lifestyle choice doesn't deserve the same civil rights protections as normal Americans. You weren't born that way. You just want special rights. Want to marry someone of the same sex? Sorry, not allowed, but you have the perfect freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex JUST like everyone else. So nyah!

 

[sidhe]

Alright then. Let me come at you from a different angle then (the fundy angle). Since you just chose to become bisexual your sinful lifestyle choice doesn't deserve the same civil rights protections as normal Americans. You weren't born that way. You just want special rights. Want to marry someone of the same sex? Sorry, not allowed, but you have the perfect freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex JUST like everyone else. So nyah!

Here's my question - even if homosexuality were a choice, and people could change (meaning everyone...that everyone sexual preference was 100% fluid) - does it matter? People in the early 1900's could choose to only be romantically involved with members of their own race, and attraction like that is much more fluid than gender attraction. That still wasn't a valid reason to enforce miscegenation laws.

Regardless of why people are attracted to who they're attracted to, there's no valid legal reason to deny any two (or more, IMHO) consenting adults of any gender combination from entering into a contract granting legal protections and tax benefits.

Arguing over "choice" vs. "born" distracts from the core of the issue: restricting marriage to a certain definition of gender combination is an unfair limitation of rights. Marriage is a legal contract - any individuals of legal age wanting to enter into it should be allowed to do so.

 

[selfinflikted]

Arguing over "choice" vs. "born" distracts from the core of the issue: restricting marriage to a certain definition of gender combination is an unfair limitation of rights. Marriage is a legal contract - any individuals of legal age wanting to enter into it should be allowed to do so.

Agreed.

But maybe someone can help me here. There are those of us who contend that their sexual orientation *was* indeed a choice. Well, I'm certainly not going to call shenanigans on that, because quite frankly, there's no way I could even begin to prove them wrong. But I just can't wrap my head around it. Let me explain.

I do believe that sexual orientation can be fluid, in that it can change over the course of one's lifetime. As such, a person's preference will change accordingly. However, I do not believe that this is a *conscious* choice through force of will. I cannot see how someone could willfully choose to be attracted to one thing or another. One is either attracted, or not attracted - dictated soley through sexual orientation. Are some of you saying that there is a real, conscious, willful choice in the matter? Or are you simply saying that sexual orientations are indeed fluid and can change (through no force of will), as I read it? That said, I do believe also that bisexuality is a valid sexual orientation in that, one can be attraced to one sex or the other, but I also believe this attraction is not chosen.

 

[Trevorocity]

You're kind of putting the cart before the horse there. In order for Phobes to maintain their position of smug superiority Homosexuality/bisexuality must invariably be a conscious choice. Unconcious decisions are necessarily outside of the individual Homosexual's control. As such they cannot be held culpable. Of course you'll still have the, "well even if they find a gene for homosexuality, homos are still going to Hell because the bible (idol) says so!" Those people just need to become mercifully extinct and it will happen over time.

Agreed.

But maybe someone can help me here. There are those of us who contend that their sexual orientation *was* indeed a choice. Well, I'm certainly not going to call shenanigans on that, because quite frankly, there's no way I could even begin to prove them wrong. But I just can't wrap my head around it. Let me explain.

I do believe that sexual orientation can be fluid, in that it can change over the course of one's lifetime. As such, a person's preference will change accordingly. However, I do not believe that this is a *conscious* choice through force of will. I cannot see how someone could willfully choose to be attracted to one thing or another. One is either attracted, or not attracted - dictated soley through sexual orientation. Are some of you saying that there is a real, conscious, willful choice in the matter? Or are you simply saying that sexual orientations are indeed fluid and can change (through no force of will), as I read it? That said, I do believe also that bisexuality is a valid sexual orientation in that, one can be attraced to one sex or the other, but I also believe this attraction is not chosen.

 

[cantata]

Agreed.

But maybe someone can help me here. There are those of us who contend that their sexual orientation *was* indeed a choice. Well, I'm certainly not going to call shenanigans on that, because quite frankly, there's no way I could even begin to prove them wrong. But I just can't wrap my head around it. Let me explain.

I do believe that sexual orientation can be fluid, in that it can change over the course of one's lifetime. As such, a person's preference will change accordingly. However, I do not believe that this is a *conscious* choice through force of will. I cannot see how someone could willfully choose to be attracted to one thing or another. One is either attracted, or not attracted - dictated soley through sexual orientation. Are some of you saying that there is a real, conscious, willful choice in the matter? Or are you simply saying that sexual orientations are indeed fluid and can change (through no force of will), as I read it? That said, I do believe also that bisexuality is a valid sexual orientation in that, one can be attraced to one sex or the other, but I also believe this attraction is not chosen.

Hi!

I'll explain how I changed my sexual orientation. I simply spent three years telling myself that I found women attractive. It took a lot of effort. I had to consciously remind myself to think, "That woman is attractive. I am attracted to her." It did not come naturally to me at all in the beginning. However, after three years of doing that, it began to come naturally. Now it's second nature. I guess it's kind of like when you listen to some music you don't really "get" over and over again, and gradually it starts to sound good, to make sense to you.

I'm quite sure I couldn't change back, by the way, but maybe that'd be different for some people. Now I know what there is to like about women, I think it'd be hard to give them up.

 

[cantata]

Alright then. Let me come at you from a different angle then (the fundy angle). Since you just chose to become bisexual your sinful lifestyle choice doesn't deserve the same civil rights protections as normal Americans. You weren't born that way. You just want special rights. Want to marry someone of the same sex? Sorry, not allowed, but you have the perfect freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex JUST like everyone else. So nyah!

You think that the fact that people might use it against me is a reason to lie about my sexuality? Er, this from an openly gay man? Sorry, but that's all kinds of double standard.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'll explain how I changed my sexual orientation. I simply spent three years telling myself that I found women attractive. It took a lot of effort. I had to consciously remind myself to think, "That woman is attractive. I am attracted to her." It did not come naturally to me at all in the beginning. However, after three years of doing that, it began to come naturally. Now it's second nature. I guess it's kind of like when you listen to some music you don't really "get" over and over again, and gradually it starts to sound good, to make sense to you.

I'm quite sure I couldn't change back, by the way, but maybe that'd be different for some people. Now I know what there is to like about women, I think it'd be hard to give them up.

Maybe you've been through this before... um... but why would you put yourself through that?