Some news regarding ex-gay stuff:
- Spitzer Discusses New Book on Ex-Gay Therapy – NEW YORK PSYCHIATRIST Robert L. Spitzer was always a rebel, and his rabble-rousing research alternately made people view him as a hero and a saboteur of the gay rights movement. "I admit, there is something in me that is always looking for trouble or something to challenge the orthodoxy," Spitzer says in an interview published in the upcoming book Ex-Gay Research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics and Culture.
- The Lure of Lesbianism – CT has the story of a young woman’s journey into and out of lesbianism. Nice.
- Can Homosexuals Change? – Albert Mohler hosts a show and gives a Christian perspective. He responds to the Dan Savage column in the NYT entitled Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-gay Cowboys (NYT now makes you pay for archived articles :( )
- Mysexcity.com – this new gay-men’s health site is described in a press release as a "novel approach to reach young gay and bisexual men, 31% of whom are estimated to be living with HIV in the United States." It’s got cool interactive flash stuff and good music, and is aimed at being educational. I don’t like all of the messages (it’s a pro-gay site), and I learned about some things I’ve never heard of (GHB?) but probably don’t need to know about, but it is well done.
- NPR Hosts Discussion Of Homosexuality In Public Schools – National Public Radio host Neal Conan hosted a program on February 16, 2006 to discuss the issue of teaching homosexuality to public school children.
- New Study Alleges That Mother’s Genetics May Account For Gay Sons – A study published in Human Genetics alleges that researchers have found that a mother’s genetic make-up may produce gay sons.
If a mother's genetic makeup produces gay sons, the God clearly approves of gays.
Maybe
More bigot trash.
So Louis, do you believe that all ex-gay stories are untrue or trash? Can't you accept that perhaps some gays or lesbians were that way due to some emotional trauma, and were healed later on? Why do all gays have to be genetic? Maybe some are, and some aren't. Maybe the mix of genetic and environmental factors is different for different people.
Seeker,
I think more women than men experiment with their own gender sexually. In fact, I am sure that I have read statistic somewhere. Does that then make them a lesbian? Does a single act define sexuality? For that matter, does a year of a girl making out with a girl make her gay? It absolutely does not.
Which is where the ex-gay movement finds its first people. I think that people confuse their own emotions, or interests, and self-identify as gay without actually being gay. Then they "repent" or whatever, and poof, they're straight.
The second group that the ex-gay movement finds are gays who have been so horribly shamed by their families, peers, and religion that it is simply easier to suppress every internal desire. Which means that I don't believe that ex-gay individuals are actually not gay – I believe that they're so sick and tired of being browbeat by people who "love" them that they simply give up. It is easier to fake being straight than it is to be gay.
I don't think anybody who gives up on their own desires – especially when those desires hurt nobody else – has been healed Seeker. I think they have been convinced to repress themselves. I know that you think this is a wonderful idea, this sacrifice in God's name. Of course, I it find so unbelievably offensive. I would never ask that my daughter repress her desires if her desires hurt nobody else. I could never hate my child in that fashion.
(Of course, I'd also be excited if my daughter was gay, because then she wouldn't get knocked up at a young age. There. I said it. I'm the first parent in the history of the world who wants a gay child. How angry are you now Seeker?)
Also, NPR? Seeker, don't let your conservative friends find out you support that liberal bastion. If your friends find out, they might believe that you're against its funding being cut. After all, no good conservative can support NPR's funding.
I think the so-call "ex-gay" movement is just another pernicious, crackpot idea by the christianists to shove their ideology down our throats (sort of like creationism and ID). It says to people like me that I am "sick" or "dysfunctional" and that I can be "healed" by their pseudo-science. I suppose it's one step up from forced institutionalization along with its nightmare scenarios of electroshock therapy, drugs and aversion therapy (complete with electric shocks) as was once done in the name of "healing" queers. But that's not saying much, is it?
It's not just that it's offensive and idiotic, but that it's a lie which entangles innocents and destroys their lives. How many kids must undergo this to keep from being booted out by their christianist families? How many "ex-gays" are getting it on the low-down (often unsafely)while putting on a show of hetero-orthodoxy to their family and friends ? It just shows how stupid and out of touch with reality so much of christendom really is.
Albert Mohler's radio show doesn't strike me as a particularly relevant source Seeker. I'm listening to this episode, and in listening to Mr. Chambers speak about his ex-gay Exodus Ministries, I genuinely believe that Mr. Chambers was never, in fact, gay. More than likely, he found comfort with a man somewhere, despite being straight.
Does that mean that he was ever actually gay? Of course not. I think sexuality is far more innate.
Some people would call me an ex-gay, Seeker. If I was a Christian, and I thought there was something inherently wrong with being gay, I might call myself "ex-gay", too. But I'm not any such thing.
When I first came out of the closet, I told people I was gay, and I assumed that was the truth. I definitely wasn't straight, and the idea of being anything other than "straight" or "gay" was out-of-the-question due to the enormous cultural stigma that bisexuals are given from all sides. In spite of that it eventually became apparent to me that I was attracted to women, and that the label "gay" was as inapplicable to me as "straight". Now I'm engaged to a woman who I love and I don't plan on ever sleeping with another man for the rest of my life (or a woman other than Lauren, for that matter). That doesn't make me straight, though, even if I wanted to call myself that.
Don't mistake me: I'm not suggesting that all "ex-gays" would be better labelled as bisexual. My point is that someone's behaviors, their beliefs, or even their best interests, don't dictate their nature. And Sam's point is valid: Just because someone engaged in homosexual behavior doesn't mean that they were once a homosexual. If there's a better illustration of that than prison, I've never encountered it.
Some people believe, and some studies would indicate, that being gay is genetic. Others say that it's environmental, hormonal, psychological, preferrential — and the list goes on. I don't know, one way or the other, and I don't think anyone else does, either. I've come across enough anecodotal evidence to make me believe that there's a psychological element to homosexuality. There seem to be a lot of sexually abused children who end up expressing same-sex attraction. I don't have any hard numbers on that, so I'm not at all certain, but it does appear to be true.
Still, there's enough clear evidence of homosexuals who have nothing traumatic in their past to dispnorove the theory that all homosexual behavior is a "maladaptation" (to use your word), and even to indicate that most same-sex attraction probably is not due to negative experiences in one's childhood. All we can say, if we're really being honest, is that we don't have enough information right now to make any kind of declaration. And I don't believe that we need to, either.
Seeker, you're far too willing to overlook your Christian bias in this matter. Your religion frames the situation in such a way that you can't possibly think of homosexuality as value-neutral. And your religion has been wrong in the past. A lot. Christianity sets up homosexuality as inherently bad in your mind, and you're unwilling to consider that theses beliefs about it might not be true at all. You've used lots of arguments to justify your position: You've said that anal sex is harmful, unnatural, and biblically prohibited. You've even claimed that homosexuality is damaging to a man's "masculinity", preventing him from being happy, and harming his family relations.
And all the while you claim that you love homosexual people, and only want what's best for them. You can hardly act surprised when people like Sam, Louis, or myself don't believe you. It's hard to imagine that someone could spend so much of their time saying so many negative things about so many people's lives, and not have ANY of that carry over into feelings about those people themselves. And that is what Sam means when he says that you "hate" gays. He means — and he's correct — that it's impossible for a person who spends so much of his time criticizing a group of people's behavior to not have negative feelings about the people in question. If you think that's untrue, you're living in a dreamy la-la land that doesn't exist.
So let me welcome you to the real world: Open your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong about a large number of things. We all are. Lots of people, just like you, believe that they have access to revealed truths. They can't possibly all be correct. Even if you think that Christianity is the "right" religion, the odds of being right about your particular brand of Christianity are pretty low. You're just a regular person, and despite your beliefs, you've just got a regular religion, and it doesn't offer you any special insights into the behavior of all the homosexuals you claim to care about. You'll always be able to find "evidence" to back up your beliefs, whether it's from a psuedo-scientific journal, or some group of ex-gays. ut if you're really honest, and you really look at the world outside of your Christian community, you'll see that it's not nearly as clear as your Baptist upbringings lead you to believe.
Well, Sam, I think you stopped short on the "types of ex-gays."
Sure, there are some people who have experimented with same-sex sex or romance. I certainly don't consider them gay, but perhaps some would. Nor would I consider their straightness afterwards as a successful ex-gay event.
Sure, there are some people who, for reasons of cajoling or guilt, are merely repressing their SSA. However, while some of these may be doing so because it doesn't work for them, others may be doing so because the actualy work of healing is very hard and painful, or because they have a bad therapist, or both.
Sure, some "bisexuals" who have attraction to both sexes, may end up hetero. Were they gay? Maybe, maybe not.
But the category you fail to mention is the growing number of people who had a SSA and now consider themselves ex-gay after therapy. You doubt they are real, despite their insistence that you can't possibly know how they feel inside. Since you and I both lack that experience, perhaps we need the humility to say that they may be correct, morality aside.
I mean, who says all gays are gay for the same reasons? Maybe some are gay due to a gender identity disorder, and some are "meant" to be that way. Why does it have to be either-or? Becuase someone on one side or the other is "offended"? BFD!
Actually, I really like NPR, and so do a lot of Xians, although hardcore conservatives don't (but then again, I'm a moderate ;). Fiscally, however, I am a conservative, and I have no problem defunding the arts or NPR. Perhaps they should both be funded by private donors or commercial interests.
Nevermind the NPR argument Seeker – that's another argument for another day. What I'll take issue with is your description of some gays as being "healed."
If I was to grant you that some gays can be "healed" – what you call healed, I'll call passing bisexuality, as in the case of our mutual friend Stewart – you would seem to think that healed means no more problems. And yet, all of testimonies that I have ever read from "ex-gays" or heard on the Albert Mohler show, suggest that the same-sex attraction still exists. Ex-gays talk about how hard it is to walk the correct path.
Why is that I wonder? Is it possibly because they are simply repressing their true feelings? Somebody isn't "healed" if they're still attracted to men, but married to a woman. That person is repressed.
Further, I'll note that you acknowledged that some gays may have been "meant" to be that way. If gays are born that way, if there is nothing they can do to change their orientation to your likely, then surely you must acknowledge that denying them equal rights makes absolutely no sense at all.
Well, I have two things to say about those with continued SSA after therapy:
1. This fits the model of many dysfunctions or maladaptive behaviors addressed with a "recovery" model – those who have had problems with addiction know that to some extent, they will always have a weakness that they need to be careful of. So we should really ask, what does "healed" mean or look like? Must it mean no more SSA ever? No temptation during times of duress? And to your point, how can we tell the difference between someone who is in recovery and someone who is just repressing?
2. I don't think the bisexual model is always the case. I mean, before therapy, if they had no OSA, then they weren't bisexual. If after therapy, they have both, are you saying that we changed them from homo to bi? I would say that they are awakening to a hetero attraction that is true to their nature, while struggling with an ongoing, unhealthy SSA maladaptation.
Confusing homosexuality with addiction is so unfair Seeker. Addicts make a series of decisions and in that decision making, become addicts. Children aren't born addicts. Children are born gay – whether or not you've ever met any gays, all of the gays that I know report knowing at an early age that something was very, very different about them.
Addicts can go back to a particular point in their lives and discuss when the addiction began. Gays cannot do this. Bisexuals might be able to pinpoint when same-sex sexual activity began, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with attraction.
One final point: alcoholics are never healed. A "recovering" alcoholic is always an alcoholic. Which makes me wonder if the same couldn't be said for this nonsense about gay recovery. If the same rules apply, then a gay man who claims to be "healed" is, in fact, a recovering gay man. But still a GAY MAN. This is of the greatest importance I believe. Alcoholics suppress not their desire for alcohol, but their willingness to partake. If you're going to insist that gays are like alcoholics, then what you're arguing for isn't an end to their homosexuality, but rather, a suppression of it.
This isn't a cure. This is suppression.
I believe that the reason that many gays can not point to a specific "decision" to become gay is not because it is "inborn", but because
1. Gender idenitify malformation begins as early as age two, and the roots of their problem may originate in the ages between 2 and 4, when these responses are not consciously chosen, they are just a natural response to a bad environment.
2. Gender confusion and rejection, even if they happen when older or as a result of later problems, is again, not consciously chosen, but a subconscious pyschological defense mechanism which must be brought to the conscious level w/ therapy, just like a lot of other dysfunctions like codependency or addiction.
————-
Perhaps the comparison to substance abuse is not a good one. Let's choose sexual addiction as the model, or codependency. That's probably closer.
Seeker,
You can argue (1) all you want, but you still offer us NO explanation for the gays who grew up in normal, two-parent homes. And there are, for the record, plenty of those. Better yet, how about squaring your opinion of (1) with all of the big-time right-wing religious parents who have gay children. (Alan Keyes for example.)
As for (2), can you please re-explain it? I don't understand the argument, unless (2) is supposed to be the catch-all for gays raised in stable, two-parent homes.
All this is irrelevant. The real question is, why should gays want to or have to switch anyway? Because it makes xians and other heteros comfortable? Just because you define it as some kind of disorder doesn't make it true. The real dysfunction here is in xians' inability to accept reality and their desperate attempts to flout it.
Louis,
There isn't any problem with Christians disliking gays, per se. Seeker can hate ("love") them all he wants. That's the greatness of our country. The issue is where Seeker tries to draw legal lines specifically to exclude gays from institutions in which Seeker participates.
Ideally, Christians would, seeing that gay marriage hasn't in any way affected straight marriage, change their minds about gays. But if they don't, no big deal.
As I have said, all gays are not the same, nor formed the same. Are you saying that you reject all possible ex-gays as invalid? If so, I'd call that an act of hubris.
The fact that a huge proportion of gays come from abusive situations is important, and is not invalidated by those who came from "good" homes. I think there is a clear link between abuse and other environmental factors that cause gender disorders.
While many gays may self-report that they came from "good" homes, their lack of bonding with a parent (which can even happen via a poorly timed medical isolation, for e.g., or a parent off at war), or a traumatic event, may not be remembered. But what if they don't self-report, but we have a better measure of their childhood. I suspect that the number of "normal" homes for gays plummets.
Regarding non-chosen defense mechanisms, I used to work with teens with attachment disorder. Their emotional injuries were often from childhood rejections from very early ages. They don't choose not to attach, they just don't because of a natural response to their trauma. I suspect that gender identity formation is exactly the same – not consciously chosen (though perhaps consciously acted upon when older), but it still drives behavior.
Why should gays switch? Well, some of them recognize that they are driven by injury, not by "nature" and want to be healed – it's called "unwanted SSA" – believe it or not, some people don't want their SSA, not because someone told them it was wrong or unacceptable, but because they want a natural life – i.e. one with a wife and kids.
Second, they might want to switch because they come to believe that not only is homosexuality against nature, but sinful, separating them from God. In that case, they want to be released from SIN.
And by the way, if you are not aware of how maladaptations form during each stage of emotional development, read Erik Eriksson's Eight Stages of Psychosocial Development, or just read some of the inner-child therapy books.
Sam, seeker and all other xianists are loonie bigot cultists. Would that I could live in a country uninfluenced by religion. Even Europe has been invaded by islamist assholes.
Is there a planet I can migrate to that is ruled by secular humanists?
Europe is being invaded because there is a spiritual vacuum – when you leave xianity, any old crap can come in – secularism doesn't meet man's need for god.
No, you can not move to a secular humanist utopia, because it does not exist. Secular humanism devolves to moral relativity, which leads to societal chaos brought on by immorality, which leads to totalitarian rule to regain order. You will not find a secular humanist state that endures. Only a xian one can guarantee your freedom, from both evil and sin ;). What we've got is the best around, warts and all.
Seeker,
Since I never said that I believe that all ex-gays are "invalid," I'll ignore your accusation of hubris. I will say that I believe it is more likely that "ex-gays" are either bisexual, repressed, or simply straights who experimented.
The fact that a huge proportion of gays come from abusive situations is important, and is not invalidated by those who came from "good" homes. I think there is a clear link between abuse and other environmental factors that cause gender disorders.
And again, I'm not entirely sure that there is evidence that a "huge" proportion of gays came from abusive situations. However, if I acknowledge that some gays have come from abusive situations, isn't it just as likely that the abuse visited upon them was a result of their difference? Fathers hitting their sons for playing with dolls might not have caused the abuse – rather, the abuse was a result of difference. Do you acknowledge this possibility?
As for gays who claim good homes, but were actually the victims of abuse, I don't even know what to say. Do you have absolutely any evidence to back this claim up? Because frankly, I'm going to trust people who say they were treated properly by their parents. Geez.
Regarding non-chosen defense mechanisms, I used to work with teens with attachment disorder. Their emotional injuries were often from childhood rejections from very early ages. They don't choose not to attach, they just don't because of a natural response to their trauma. I suspect that gender identity formation is exactly the same – not consciously chosen (though perhaps consciously acted upon when older), but it still drives behavior.
It genuinely seems like you're less interested in having an actual conversation, than simply contriving bizarre explanations for homosexuality. Until I see something really convincing – and for the record, attachment disorder hardly strikes me as convincing – I'm going to go with the Occam's Razor explanation. Gays are born different, and are always different. And yes, you're right, LOTS of gays don't want their SSA. Why? Because of the overwhelming tidal wave of anti-gay sentiment in this country: being called fag in high school, being beat up for being different, hearing that God hates you, knowing that achieving a traditional "natural life" is going to be damned near impossible. I think it is safe to say that Josh over at the Conjecturer CLEARLY doesn't want his SSA. However, I think he recognizes that it isn't something that can be either changed OR repressed. So I acknowledge that those people exist.
But wouldn't it be better if they were comfortable in who they are, especially if who they are doesn't hurt or harm anybody else? Isn't it far more important for those individuals be comfortable, rather than ensuring that YOU'RE comfortable?
< will say that I believe it is more likely that "ex-gays" are either bisexual, repressed, or simply straights who experimented.
This is the same as denying that they were actually gay, and now are not. I am suggesting a category that does not fit into any of your “false conversion” categories.
However, if I acknowledge that some gays have come from abusive situations, isn’t it just as likely that the abuse visited upon them was a result of their difference?
You could control for that, but I’d have to say that I think you are reaching a bit on this one. But real data could replace opinion. I doubt that would explain the overwhelmingly large numbers involved (47% of gay males v. 7% of hetero).
As for gays who claim good homes, but were actually the victims of abuse, I don’t even know what to say. Do you have absolutely any evidence to back this claim up? Because frankly, I’m going to trust people who say they were treated properly by their parents.
I didn’t say that they were actually victims of abuse – what I meant is that (a) these events are often from before conscious memory, (b) they are not just caused by parents – it could be a molestation event by an uncle or camp couneslor, or it could just be an overly masculine father who doesn’t understand his more sensitive, bookish son. The latter is not abuse, but the father’s lack of connection may cause gender problems. And there are many other factors, like a controlling mother (this often goes undetected as abuse) or codependency in the family. There are all sorts of known events which can lead to gender identity issues. So just because someone had good parents is no guarantee that they didn’t have pre-memory or extra-familial events that led them down the path of emotional separation from their own gender.
I remember the testimony of serial killer Ted Bundy, who said that he came from a good home. What turned him? A neighbor had thrown out some old porno mags, and as a pre-teen he found them and got addicted to porno, which he believes led to a cycle of increased need for stimulation, which led to snuff porn, then to doing it. Good parents, but another event sent him that way.
It genuinely seems like you’re less interested in having an actual conversation, than simply contriving bizarre explanations for homosexuality.
I summarized the data in this article. That is for actualy conversation. Your accusation of bizzarre seems like a bit of a copout. I make some arguments backed with data, and your retort is “this is so bizarre.”?? I’d say *that* is not actual conversation, but bailing out of a good discussion because you don’t like the data. You pick on some of the weaker data, or what you accuse as weaker (like the seemingly well-documented link between childhood sexual abuse and homosexuality), but that accusation seems clearly false in light of the data.
I’m going to go with the Occam’s Razor explanation. Gays are born different, and are always different.
Non-sequitur. How about this argument? “I’m going with Occam’s Razor. Homosexuality is purely environmental, and always has been.” As I have stated previously, I think anyone who claims either purely genetic or purely environmental has an agenda, and is not really insterested in the roots of homosexuality except as a political excuse to accuse or accept it. I say it is both, and we may have a spectrum from largely genetic to largely environmental. But until then, to claim one or the other is really just guessing.
The data above seems to indicate a strong environmentalc component, and one that is linked to sexual abuse, as well as other conditions that are involved with mental disorders, like high suicide and depression rates. You can claim that it’s because they are socially outcast, and that may be partially true, but the data above seems to indicate that the link may be independent of social pressures.
LOTS of gays don’t want their SSA. Why?
As I said, you find it hard to believe that some people don’t want it because they recognize it as unnatural, and a result of trauma. You discount these people as spurious, or really just bisexuals or some other thing. I say you are wrong, and eliminating this group not with data, but because it doesn’t fit your ideology.
I think he recognizes that it isn’t something that can be either changed OR repressed.
Maybe he feels that way because the AMA and others have a political agenda, and have overwheliming lied to him, ignorantly opposing any efforts at gay recovery. Perhaps he has no faith to change because people like YOU are taking it away from him because it doesn’t fit your mental model – you know, the one with anecdotal data, the one that refuses to consider seriously the type of data IN THIS PAPER.
But wouldn’t it be better if they were comfortable in who they are, especially if who they are doesn’t hurt or harm anybody else? Isn’t it far more important for those individuals be comfortable, rather than ensuring that YOU’RE comfortable?
This is not about my comfort, it’s about providing liberating truth to those who want it, and about those who would suppress it because they would rather accomodate their maladaptation than allow those with the courage and faith to do the hard work of recovery to do so. It’s about freedom of choice. It’s about not promulgating sickness as health, and in so doing, pulling our country down the road to the chaos and expense that immorality always brings.
Seeker,
This is getting absolutely absurd.
1. I acknowledge that ex-gays can be repressed gays who act straight. I do not for a second believe that a gay person, born gay and attracted to the same gender, can through the process of therapy, become straight. I know that you believe otherwise, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I genuinely believe that most of these people are either bisexual, repressed, or have simply experimented, without understanding that experimentation does not sexuality make. In other words, two dudes can hook up without making either of the dudes gay.
2. That figure of 47 percent is AWFULLY convincing for those who argue that sexuality results from abuse. However, while I have met a great many gay people, very few have ever been abused, and those who were suffered torment in junior high and high school for being different.
3. How can a two-year old be bookish? As for this "molested before they remember" argument, isn't that the least likely explanation? What evidence is there for this? And as you add evidence and explanation, this scenario becomes less likely.
Finally, how on Earth you're going to cite Ted Bundy, a sociopath who WOULD not draw a line on right from wrong, is absolutely beyond me. He's going to be your example? And you're going to believe his explanation of pornography? You're not serious are you?
4. The "bizarre" that I was talking about was allegeding widespread, unknown abuse. I just don't think that makes sense.
5. Occam's Razor involves the simplest possible answer: birth in this case. Environmental effects + widespread secret molestation + parental abuse is not the simplest possible explanation.
6. It isn't a matter of ideology Seeker – it's a matter of reality. The people at NARTH never consider other viewpoints because it doesn't fit their own preconceived notion of what is and isn't right. Long before there was any data to back NARTH, there were researchers who didn't like homosexuality. They manipulated research to create data. But I have plenty of experience with gays Seeker, and none of them have ever matched any of the descriptions that you're putting forth. As anecdotal as my argument is, I'm going to have to believe what I see with my own eyes on this one.
7. Accusing Josh of being nothing but a pawn of the American Medical Association is insulting and stupid. You owe him an apology. He's gone through a personal hell of trying to rectify his deeply held religious beliefs with his sexuality, and for you to simply dismiss him is too much. And while we're at it, why don't you stop pretending that NARTH is anything but a "scientific" organization designed to reinforce Christian hatred of gays. NARTH wouldn't come forward if its data suggested that Christian gay hatred was wrong. And you know it.
How you can be so damned arrogant is impossible for me to understand Seeker. You aren't right, you won't ever be right, and you have no idea how offending you are to others.
Finally, you don't care about this country. If you did, you'd live and let live where nobody else was getting hurt.
Sam, why do you continue to argue with this guy? It's obvious that he has a bee in his bonnet regarding homosex that no amount of reasoned discussion will change. He's the ultimate xian.
while I have met a great many gay people, very few have ever been abused,
Anecdotal evidence on your part, and of course, most people don't talk about their abuse. I bethca half of them either had sub-par parental relationships or were sexually abused by someone. Why don't you survey them and get back to me with real numbers.
I do not for a second believe that a gay person, born gay and attracted to the same gender, can through the process of therapy, become straight.
Finally, I get you to admit that you dismiss this entire category of person, with little more than anedotal evidence, and counter to the evidence (like the Spitzer report) that indicates that these people exist – I guess that's why Dr. Throckmorton named his video on the subject of gay recovery I Do Exist, because people who don't like this idea keep arrogantly saying that they just *can't* be what they say they are, since that counters their faith, er, view of homosexuality.
As for this "molested before they remember" argument, isn't that the least likely explanation? What evidence is there for this?
Molestation probably isn't the main event at age 2. However, because gender identity begins between the ages of 2 and 4, bonding issues with same sex and opposite sex parents can affect the child's sense of gender very young, before conscious memory. This is the trauma during this age. Later on, molestation events also play a part in gender confusion.
Finally, how on Earth you're going to cite Ted Bundy, a sociopath who WOULD not draw a line on right from wrong, is absolutely beyond me.
Sorry you didn't like that example. However, he came from one of your so-called "good homes" – just trying to prove a point that your "good home" argument is overly simplistic. Gays can come from good homes, but have some other event that skews their gender development, that's the point. Sorry you can't see past my poor example.
Environmental effects + widespread secret molestation + parental abuse is not the simplest possible explanation.
Straw man, that's not what I meant at all. I say that gender identity malformation, as a reaction to negative experiences during development, leads to homosexuality.
Your appeal to occam is interesting, but unfortunately, esp. with medical issues, being overly simplistic is a mistake. It's like saying "the simplest asnwer for all problems is genetic, and since trying to determine environmental causes is hard, it must not be true." Thank God you're not in medical research.
It isn't a matter of ideology Seeker – it's a matter of reality.
That's the problem here – rather than provide better data, you parade your opinion as fact because it is "obvious" to you – the problem is, your assumptions and avoidance of the data are not logical, and you appeal to ridicule rather than reason, so while your conclusions seem obvious to you, they seem spurious to anyone who is trying to interpret the data.
Accusing Josh of being nothing but a pawn of the American Medical Association is insulting and stupid.
I never accused him of being a pawn, but a victim – the APA is a pawn of gay politics rather than a servant of science. You owe me an apology for telling me I owe him and apology for something I didn't say ;P Your high horse is waiting for you.
Christian gay hatred
Please, will you stop already with the accusation of hate? It's inaccurate, tiring, and damaging to your arguments because it's anti-intellectual fear-mongering.
How you can be so damned arrogant is impossible for me to understand Seeker.
It's easy. Just look in the mirror, and say to yourself "I have a log in my own eye as big as seeker's, and I am the one name calling and making accusations and slurs about his motives, with words like 'hate', and dumb accusations like he 'doesn't care about America.'"
Maybe then you can understand that you are the pot calling the kettle black. Your accusations of my motives are not only wildly inaccurate, they are purposely insulting.
I may accuse you of poor and simplistic logic, but you accuse me of bad motives – hardly what I'd call intelligent debate – more like ad hominem attacks in lieu of debate.
Seeker,
I’m done. This is pointless.
Nothing is ever accomplished through conversation with you. When I make a point, you dismiss it, and when I disprove an argument of yours, you simply change the argument. You have no interest in an intellectual conversation, because that would require you to consider the possibility that you’re wrong. Unfortunately, that is positively impossible for you to do.
You can make all of the accusations that you’d like, but everything you say about not hating gays is countered by your statements like, “they’re lucky they aren’t killed.” That’s the real you Seeker, wondering why gays aren’t thanking you for not killing them. If that isn’t hatred, I don’t know what is.
I ache for your children and what you’re going to end up doing to them in the guise of “love.” And, for that matter, what you’re going to teach them about decent conversation.
I wouldn’t have this big a problem with you if you’d just be honest about either your past problems with sexuality – which is where I must assume that your hatred of gays comes from – or your current hatred. If you were honest about any of this, maybe we’d get somewhere.
Sam,
That's a deliberate misquote out of context. You hear what you want to. I only dismiss your arguments when you are merely spouting opinion in response to data. I have agreed when the data seems thin, but I don't immediately conclude "therefore it must not be true" the way you want me to.
Josh,
Actually, Sam owes both of us an apology for misrepresenting (i.e. lying about) what I said. He brought you up, I have little idea of who you are, except that he mentioned you. I did not even mention you, but Sam likes to insinuate connections where they don't exist. When he made his baseless accusation that I "owed you an apology", I responded that the *AMA* is the pawn of gay apologists, and those who believe them are victims of their scientific hypocrisy. At best, you might be considered a victim, and if you are a gay apologist, then I most certainly would not consider you a pawn, but perhaps a perpetuator (perpetrator?) of the anti-ex-gay jihad. But maybe you are neither. Maybe you are just a pawn of Sam, who got you to chime in on his little white lie, which you believed, since you obviously did not read what I wrote.
So now, after Sam apologizes to us both, I can then apologize for comparing you to Islamic terrorists, and for calling you a pawn of Sam. Feel better now that you have a reason to be offended? Give me a freaking break.
On a broader note: how dare you. You either have no experience with gays, or you did and you have decided that only those deeply in denial can ever live a happy life. No matter which one it is, you are offensive on a fundamental level.
No, how dare YOU for assuming I have no experience with gays, or ex-gays. If you had made even one iota of effort to read what I've written, you'd know different. And how dare YOU assume that all ex-gays are in denial and supressing their gaydom. Universalizing from your experience may be valuable in making generalizations, but the science indicates otherwise.
So hop back up on the high horse with Sam and spare me the faux (or real) outrage. You may feel that you can't and don't need to change. As Jesus said to the Pharisees, "I came for the sick, not those who are well." There are plenty of gays with unwanted SSAs who are finding hope and change through reparative therapy, and you shouldn't try to take it from them just because you have a different experience.
Seeker, please parse my statements more carefully. I am a christian who is also gay. Sam and I have discussed this at length, and I have come to the conclusion that both are aspects of who I am, and I cannot change them. I tried being straight, and I tried not believing in Christ. Neither resulted in a healthy outcome.
Now, I know you have “experience” with gays, at least as far as you’ve written—my point is that your attitude, since it is one I encounter all the time, is deeply hurtful and you don’t seem to realize it. You are actively hurting people like me, who do struggle with resolving how to live our lives as honestly and faithfully as possible, because you are extraordinarily unempathetic to our struggle. To you, sexuality is simply a disease to be excised, nothing more. Telling that to a teenager (as happened to me) will result in the need for a great deal of therapy later in life. There is no way for a child to emerge from such an environment unscathed.
And also why do so many ex-gays wind up in fag bars, or looking for anonymous sex in various chatrooms? This is such a large percentage of people who go through therapy, including a leader in a christian organization on my campus, that I cannot help thinking that the ultimate result is not genuine change, but repression. That isn’t healthy, on a psychological level, but on a message level—God cannot love you until you change who you are. That is the opposite of the Gospel Jesus preached—He wants us as we are, not as a way we think is acceptable to God. Whether or not we change is up to Him, not some psychotherapist twisting sketchy research.
And Sam owes me zero apology. Unlike what I can see from your attitude, he has shown himself to be a sympathetic and caring friend who will support me even while he disagrees with what I believe. I cannot say the same for you. As a Christian, that should give you serious pause, that you are only willing to accept people on your own terms, and not theirs.
And also why do so many ex-gays wind up in fag bars, or looking for anonymous sex in various chatrooms?
Maybe because sexual preference is biologically determined and trying to change that is useless? Or maybe, as I have said before, like anyone in recovery, they relapse under stress, or they find the inner work too difficult, or some friendly gay person lures them back in, telling them that they'll never really change (taking away their hope). I presented some evidence for the recovery model, and that should be honored as an honest look at the situation.
Certainly, repression is not healthy. But the fact that some people seem to HAVE changed means that for some, this avenue is successful, so let's not squash it with equally questionable research.
Of course Sam supports you, he agrees with you. God help you if he disagrees, because he can be a real jerk then. While I acknowledge that he sometimes makes an effort at responding, he often degenerates to ad hominem attacks, misrepresentations of what I write (like his lie about what I never said about you) and my motives, calling me a hateful, among other things. This is much worse than my snide remarks about his illogic.
I'm sorry if you caught some of my attitude directed at Sam, but unfortunately for you, you jumped in the middle, backing Sam. Now cry foul because I mistook you for Sam's yes man? You seemed to have bought into his misinformation. Don't step into the path of a car and then blame the car.
My arguments have nothing to do with accepting or rejecting you. I am just talking about accepting or rejecting logical arguments. If you take it so personally, it is because I think you are confusing disagreement with personal disapproval. As I said in my excellent article What is Hate, just because I disagree with someone's opinion, or want to call a bahavior immoral, does not mean that I don't accept somone as a person. A child, of course, does not understand this distinction, but an adult should. And while we are all sinners, we should be taken to task for justifying sin as normative.
I am not arguing with you because you are gay, but because you take a stance I think is incomplete or wrong.
I apologize that I bit your head off, and your response was a lot more reasonable in tone. However, as many times as I try to present logical information to Sam, he mixes his responses with ad hominem attacks and seemingly purposeful (or willfully ignorant) misrepresentation of what is written. He deserves the ire he recieves from me, and then some. And his moral outrage, and demanding apologies, is a childish attempt at gaining the moral high ground, while averting any real logical response backed with data.
Wait, I bought into his misinformation? Since when does Sam determine who I am or what I think?
Also, way to hype yourself. I like the "in my excellent article" — that's real humility there.
Also, since when does anyone deserve a Christian's ire? Seeker, you're a very anrgy person, just like Sam. Does it surprise you you're at each others' throats?
And, I’m sorry, if you reread what I just said above, then compare it with your statements in this comment thread, you in fact ARE rejecting who I am. You declare that because some people renounce homosexuality, my acceptance of it invalidates my faith. Implictly, of course, since I’m sure you’ll point out you never said that exact thing, but let’s be intellectually honest here—that’s what you said. I don’t care what you wrote in your “excellent article,” I care about what you’re saying now. And you’re contradicting yourself.
Seeker,
I love it – I'm the one who gets angry, irrational, jerky, etcetera. You? You're the model of civilized debate. At least I admit that I'm a jerk.
I propose everyone boycott seeker on gays. It's clear that he's unreachable on this topic, and that his views are so extreme that they are laughable. It's clear that, no matter what argument is used or evidence produced, he will slither and slide away and simply repeat his phony arguments. Therefore, it's time to ignore him everyone.
There should be a course in reparative therapy for xians.
What about that pesky time Jesus said that when you harbor anger in your heart toward someone, you've murdered them? Let's not be selective in how we quote scripture.