The New-New Moral Majority

[acropolis]

Trevorocity claimed that no one ever changes their sexual orientation. I think it is ludicrous and unfair to make such sweeping statements, which are clearly going to alienate anyone who actually did change themselves in whatever way. Why does it matter if a few people did? I don't see how it makes a difference to any of the arguments anyway. I doubt psychopaths choose to be psychopaths, but you can still make a good case for them not acting in the ways they feel motivated to act, so the issue of choice clearly has no bearing on the ethics of homosexual activity.

I am quite happy to go along with the statement, "Most people cannot change their sexual orientation," and also with the statement "Most people did not choose their sexual orientation," but I am singularly unwilling to accept a claim from one person with a chip on their shoulder that no one has ever in the entire history of the universe changed their sexual orientation. Ex-gay ministries, by the way, usually aim precisely at cultivating opposite-sex attraction more than they attempt to eliminate same-sex attraction (although they do, of course, encourage people to avoid sexual same-sex relationships).

I am also aware of some queer-by-choice people who are no longer attracted to the opposite sex. Their claims should at least be investigated before such broad generalisations are made.

The ability to change sexual orientation matters for political reasons, as I'm pretty sure you already know. But it shouldn't matter if a statistically insignificant number of people are able to change their orientation, which is a much more realistic position, like you said. There is evidence that all women exhibit bisexual attraction, so it makes sense that you, and other women, could make the switch without much trouble. I'm skeptical that more than a tiny handful of men could do the same, though. Strictly speaking, there must have been a few men that have done it, but I'm not convinced it happens enough to oppose the belief that male sexuality is static, given the political importance of that position.

 

[God-free]

The ability to change sexual orientation matters for political reasons, as I'm pretty sure you already know. But it shouldn't matter if a statistically insignificant number of people are able to change their orientation, which is a much more realistic position, like you said. There is evidence that all women exhibit bisexual attraction, so it makes sense that you, and other women, could make the switch without much trouble. I'm skeptical that more than a tiny handful of men could do the same, though. Strictly speaking, there must have been a few men that have done it, but I'm not convinced it happens enough to oppose the belief that male sexuality is static, given the political importance of that position.

(EMPHASIS MINE)

What evidence are you talking about? I've never been sexually attracted to other women. And I can say with absolute confidence that I could never make 'the switch.'

~Barbara

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is evidence that all women exhibit bisexual attraction, so it makes sense that you, and other women, could make the switch without much trouble.

I think you've been watching too much inappropriate content. In that world even the most heterosexual woman yields to the scantily-clad cheerleader.

Nevertheless, I'd be most interested to see this 'evidence'.

 

[Caylin]

I think you've been watching too much inappropriate content. In that world even the most heterosexual woman yields to the scantily-clad cheerleader.

Nevertheless, I'd be most interested to see this 'evidence'.

I'd like to move there too!

 

[StarCannon]

The ability to change sexual orientation matters for political reasons, as I'm pretty sure you already know. But it shouldn't matter if a statistically insignificant number of people are able to change their orientation, which is a much more realistic position, like you said. There is evidence that all women exhibit bisexual attraction, so it makes sense that you, and other women, could make the switch without much trouble. I'm skeptical that more than a tiny handful of men could do the same, though. Strictly speaking, there must have been a few men that have done it, but I'm not convinced it happens enough to oppose the belief that male sexuality is static, given the political importance of that position.

... I have an idea. How about: People Change. Kinda like when someone's taste buds change. Perhaps sometimes people's S.O.'s can change rather spontaneously.

 

[jcook922]

... I have an idea. How about: People Change. Kinda like when someone's taste buds change. Perhaps sometimes people's S.O.'s can change rather spontaneously.

I think that people reject that theory because instead of standing firm that it was their decision to be gay, they would rather say it isn't their fault and it wasn't a choice. Sounds more like instead of standing up and saying they believe in how they feel, they would rather avoid responsibility and say it isn't their fault.

 

[cantata]

The ability to change sexual orientation matters for political reasons, as I'm pretty sure you already know.

When you actually think about it, though, it doesn't make a difference. Not choosing to have a desire does not equate to it being "morally" acceptable to fulfil that desire.

But it shouldn't matter if a statistically insignificant number of people are able to change their orientation, which is a much more realistic position, like you said.

Indeed.

There is evidence that all women exhibit bisexual attraction, so it makes sense that you, and other women, could make the switch without much trouble.

I've never heard of any evidence in favour of all women exhibiting bisexual attraction. Could you cite some?

I had never had a sexual thought about women until I decided to become a lesbian when I was 14.

I'm skeptical that more than a tiny handful of men could do the same, though. Strictly speaking, there must have been a few men that have done it, but I'm not convinced it happens enough to oppose the belief that male sexuality is static, given the political importance of that position.

I am not at all convinced that this gender difference is not socially influenced. It is simply easier for women to be not-straight these days. I would imagine that for the ancient Greeks it was pretty socially easy for men to be not-straight, and they got down to it.

... I have an idea. How about: People Change. Kinda like when someone's taste buds change. Perhaps sometimes people's S.O.'s can change rather spontaneously.

They certainly do. I know people who, in their mid-forties, have suddenly found themselves attracted to members of their own sex. Many people are more fluid than they are given credit for. I suspect that, again, social insistence on labeling people early on gives rise to the inflexibility in sexual orientation that most people profess.

I think that people reject that theory because instead of standing firm that it was their decision to be gay, they would rather say it isn't their fault and it wasn't a choice. Sounds more like instead of standing up and saying they believe in how they feel, they would rather avoid responsibility and say it isn't their fault.

I certainly think that people do not want to worry about their children being gay because of something they did. There is a long-standing trend in psychology at the moment to lay the "blame" for everything on genetics and other biological factors.

I very much doubt that many people's sexual orientation is the result of conscious choice, but I am certainly of the opinion that for many people, environmental factors play a major part in the development of sexual orientation.

 

[LittleNipper]

So are you saying that a Christian company shouldn't be required to insure a jewish couple or a couple that had been divorced?

I would certainly want to be by my girlfriend's side if she was hurt badly enough to be out. Are you telling me that the time I spent at my mother's side as she died was wasted?

Sorry, but the Christian's I hang with, love Jews and have no problem with Traditional Jewish marriages. The Orthodox Rabbi isn't going to consider a "homosexual couple" married either. What I'm saying is that you seem to care more about being at one's side when they die, but could care less where they will spend eternity. If GOD doesn't exist, then FRANKLY you standing around at someone's bedside is rather worthless, don't you think? What exactly was gained --- if GOD doesn't exist? If it's all about you, then the act becomes rather selfish, don't you think?

 

[tulc]

I think that people reject that theory because instead of standing firm that it was their decision to be gay, they would rather say it isn't their fault and it wasn't a choice. Sounds more like instead of standing up and saying they believe in how they feel, they would rather avoid responsibility and say it isn't their fault.

hmmm Does that mean being heterosexual is also a choice? You could one day just decide "You know, being gay looks like something I'd like to try." and bang, you're gay? Can you picture yourself falling in love with a another man?
tulc(thinks if being gay is a choice so must being a heterosexual)

 

[LittleNipper]

Homosexuality and prayer in schools are completely different things; quit trying to grandstand against me.

By the way, I don't support prayer or (unchecked) Bible reading in public schools, and here's why: imagine that instead of this being a Christian nation, it is Muslim (But you're still a Christian). Would you want your children to be forced to read the Koran and pray to Allah? Would you pay for your child to go on a trip with the rest of the class to Mecca? I wouldn't have thought so.

This is what non-Christians feel when only Christians are catered to in a public school, which is for all people, regardless of race, creed, color, nationality, and sexual orientation. Shoving our religion down their throats is the wrong way to spread Christ's message. We are Christians by our actions, not our words, and creating intolerance in the public school system (i.e., an "us" vs. "them" mentality) is not a proper way to act towards others.

If you want Christianity in your school, then go to a "Christian School". That's why they're there.

Not really, It is just you seem to have a preoccupation with sexuality but find Christianity hard to swallow. You don't seem to enjoy rationalizations that expose your adjenda as shallow and contemptous of moral values. Yet, you seek "public" acceptance of your sexual desires. We are Christian in both word and deeds. Sexual orientation is learned, breed, encouraged, and fed. The very same goes for religion.

 

[jcook922]

hmmm Does that mean being heterosexual is also a choice? You could one day just decide "You know, being gay looks like something I'd like to try." and bang, you're gay? Can you picture yourself falling in love with a another man?
tulc(thinks if being gay is a choice so must being a heterosexual)

I would say being heterosexual is natural based on the human instinct to survive and reproduce while homosexuality is learned.

 

[acropolis]

(EMPHASIS MINE)

What evidence are you talking about? I've never been sexually attracted to other women. And I can say with absolute confidence that I could never make 'the switch.'

~Barbara

I think you've been watching too much inappropriate content. In that world even the most heterosexual woman yields to the scantily-clad cheerleader.

Nevertheless, I'd be most interested to see this 'evidence'.

I've never heard of any evidence in favour of all women exhibiting bisexual attraction. Could you cite some?

I had never had a sexual thought about women until I decided to become a lesbian when I was 14.

Here it is: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm

"In contrast to men, both heterosexual and lesbian women tend to become sexually aroused by both male and female erotica, and, thus, have a bisexual arousal pattern.

...

The study's results mesh with current research showing that women's sexuality demonstrates increased flexibility relative to men in other areas besides sexual orientation, according to Chivers."

I am not at all convinced that this gender difference is not socially influenced. It is simply easier for women to be not-straight these days. I would imagine that for the ancient Greeks it was pretty socially easy for men to be not-straight, and they got down to it.

Of course it's influenced a bit, but if social influence was enough to overcome the physiological elements, there would be very few homosexuals at all. But it seems their orientation remains fully intact despite even massive social pressure to be straight.

When you actually think about it, though, it doesn't make a difference. Not choosing to have a desire does not equate to it being "morally" acceptable to fulfil that desire.

It's not about morals, it's about politics. Anti-gay groups justify their attacks in part because of their belief in a changeable sexual orientation, so it hurts their cause to demonstrate that sexual orientation is static. I'm guessing the people who take a hard-line on sexual orientation being static are perfectly content with alienating a few by-choice people in order to politically defend gays from their political opponents. Not that it changes the truth at all. But the statistics posted earlier in the thread indicate that the odds of changing sexual orientation, even via intense conditioning, are vanishingly small.

 

[Fin12]

Ask any straight man like myself, who has no negative feelings to the gay community and guess what answer you will get?

How bout mine?

"I'm straight becuase I find women sexually attractive and not men."

In this world of what is oppresion of the gays, and all of us "naturally" being disgusted by same gender sex, why the hell would anyone CHOOSE to be gay?

What possible advantages are their to being gay in this society?

 

[LittleNipper]

Ask any straight man like myself, who has no negative feelings to the gay community and guess what answer you will get?

How bout mine?

"I'm straight becuase I find women sexually attractive and not men."

In this world of what is oppresion of the gays, and all of us "naturally" being disgusted by same gender sex, why the hell would anyone CHOOSE to be gay?

What possible advantages are their to being gay in this society?

The homosexual can have a "daddy" take care of him and he can be mothered. That is why.

 

[acropolis]

The homosexual can have a "daddy" take care of him and he can be mothered. That is why.

That's nonsense. Men who want to be mothered can find plenty of women to do it for them.

 

[StarCannon]

The homosexual can have a "daddy" take care of him and he can be mothered. That is why.

-_-* Dude. You're done.

What possible advantages are their to being gay in this society?

What does that have to do with anything? There are no advantages in sexuality!

 

[NPH]

The homosexual can have a "daddy" take care of him and he can be mothered. That is why.

What?

Oh c'mon, you don't honestly believe such patent nonsense, do you? lol.

And besides the sheer inanity of such an idea, what about the other partner in the relationship? If one is being 'mothered' by a 'daddy' then the other one is not receiving such attention and so this implausible idea could only be right for 50% of all homosexuals at most anyway.

This has got to be one of the silliest things i've heard in awhile lol.

 

[HannahBanana]

The homosexual can have a "daddy" take care of him and he can be mothered. That is why.

How the heck would that be a reason for anyone to choose to be gay? It's not like that cancels out all of the many, many negative societal aspects of being gay or anything.

 

[cantata]

Here it is: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm

"In contrast to men, both heterosexual and lesbian women tend to become sexually aroused by both male and female erotica, and, thus, have a bisexual arousal pattern.

...

The study's results mesh with current research showing that women's sexuality demonstrates increased flexibility relative to men in other areas besides sexual orientation, according to Chivers."

Very interesting, but it doesn't actually prove that women are attracted to both men and women.

Firstly, you said "all" women display bisexual tendencies. The article you cite actually says "most women seem capable of sexual arousal to both sexes" - and most is not all.

Secondly, "being aroused by female erotica" does not mean "finding women attractive". Perhaps women tend to think themselves into the women's roles when they watch erotica. For example, perhaps a straight woman could find herself aroused by a film of a woman masturbating, because she is thinking about the feelings that the woman is having. That's certainly how I would think about a film like that, and I'm attracted to women! So again, I'd be inclined to argue that there may be differences in the way that men and women relate to erotica, and that this may also be socially influenced.

Of course it's influenced a bit, but if social influence was enough to overcome the physiological elements, there would be very few homosexuals at all. But it seems their orientation remains fully intact despite even massive social pressure to be straight.

You underestimate the complexity of social influence. Social influence need not be as black and white as "People don't like gays, so I'll be straight." More, the trendiness (or at least, the absence of disgust) of being bisexual, for women, means that women who are unsure or curious have more space to play with those feelings than men in the same circumstances. Men are inclined either to stick to women or to go the whole hog and call themselves gay. It's easier that way.

And by the way, I don't think social pressure to stop liking something is in any way as effective as social pressure to like something new. I also don't think that negative social pressure is as effective as positive social pressure.

It's not about morals, it's about politics. Anti-gay groups justify their attacks in part because of their belief in a changeable sexual orientation, so it hurts their cause to demonstrate that sexual orientation is static.

Sure, but even if you prove that that it's static (which of course you won't), the natural response of the anti-gay group is to say, "Be celibate, then." Ultimately it is a moral question. They think gay sex is wrong, whether you choose to be gay or not.

I'm guessing the people who take a hard-line on sexual orientation being static are perfectly content with alienating a few by-choice people in order to politically defend gays from their political opponents. Not that it changes the truth at all.

Sure, but again, they're engaging with the wrong argument. Whether or not there is an element of choice in sexual orientation has no bearing on whether or not gay sex is morally acceptable, and ultimately anti-gay groups are fighting a moral corner. They want certain political results, yes, but only because they have certain moral convictions.

But the statistics posted earlier in the thread indicate that the odds of changing sexual orientation, even via intense conditioning, are vanishingly small.

Well, with regard to the intense conditioning, I am actually of the opinion that no conclusive studies have been carried out using the best conditioning techniques. And, you know, that's good, because I can't think of many good reasons to change one's sexual orientation, except maybe to become bi- or pansexual. But trust me, ex-gay ministries rarely have any idea of what they're doing. They don't usually have any properly trained psychologists or psychiatrists on board.

 

[acropolis]

Very interesting, but it doesn't actually prove that women are attracted to both men and women.

Firstly, you said "all" women display bisexual tendencies. The article you cite actually says "most women seem capable of sexual arousal to both sexes" - and most is not all.

I based that off a comment from the author of the study in a different article, looks like the author was ambiguous and I didn't catch it. 'Most' is still a lot, though, so I still think it's relevant.

Secondly, "being aroused by female erotica" does not mean "finding women attractive". Perhaps women tend to think themselves into the women's roles when they watch erotica. For example, perhaps a straight woman could find herself aroused by a film of a woman masturbating, because she is thinking about the feelings that the woman is having. That's certainly how I would think about a film like that, and I'm attracted to women! So again, I'd be inclined to argue that there may be differences in the way that men and women relate to erotica, and that this may also be socially influenced.

The point was that females and males have different physiological sexual arousal patterns, which makes it irresponsible to use a female's sexual behavior to make a general statement about both male and female behavior. It doesn't matter whether that difference is caused by genes or socialization.

You underestimate the complexity of social influence. Social influence need not be as black and white as "People don't like gays, so I'll be straight." More, the trendiness (or at least, the absence of disgust) of being bisexual, for women, means that women who are unsure or curious have more space to play with those feelings than men in the same circumstances. Men are inclined either to stick to women or to go the whole hog and call themselves gay. It's easier that way.

And by the way, I don't think social pressure to stop liking something is in any way as effective as social pressure to like something new. I also don't think that negative social pressure is as effective as positive social pressure.

The evidence indicates that social pressure doesn't work very well on sexual orientation. It is almost completely useless, according to the numbers posted. Quoting: "Most human sexuality researchers believe that one's orientation is fixed and unchangeable." Because of your example, it must be possible for at least a small number of females, ages 14-17, to go from straight to bi if they want to. But that doesn't imply anything about the effectiveness of socialization. It does open the possibility that females change if they meet the same criteria you did, although it would take more examples like it to be very meaningful.

I know of no evidence for seperating positive social pressure from negative, nor do I know of any evidence that positive pressure is more effective that negative. Like you've already said, attempts to un-gay people are made with both kinds of pressure. And these attempts fail.

Sure, but even if you prove that that it's static (which of course you won't), the natural response of the anti-gay group is to say, "Be celibate, then." Ultimately it is a moral question. They think gay sex is wrong, whether you choose to be gay or not.

Sure, but again, they're engaging with the wrong argument. Whether or not there is an element of choice in sexual orientation has no bearing on whether or not gay sex is morally acceptable, and ultimately anti-gay groups are fighting a moral corner. They want certain political results, yes, but only because they have certain moral convictions.

Pragmatically, it's more effective to use science and statistics to change the political attitudes of voters in order to secure legal rights than it is to try and engage moralists on their own terms and change the morals. The path to legal and social freedom can be won with either method, but the political path is more effective, so I tend to think of it as a political matter moreso than moral.

Well, with regard to the intense conditioning, I am actually of the opinion that no conclusive studies have been carried out using the best conditioning techniques. And, you know, that's good, because I can't think of many good reasons to change one's sexual orientation, except maybe to become bi- or pansexual. But trust me, ex-gay ministries rarely have any idea of what they're doing. They don't usually have any properly trained psychologists or psychiatrists on board.

No evidence to support this.

Given the stats, I'm going to stick with my belief that orientation cannot be changed, except in cases so few as to be negligible.