DescentBB

face it lothar, there isn't a solution that doesn't get the implementor lynched.

well currently, prehaps never.

Lothar,
You're irrational.. accept it and move on. heh.

Lothar wrote:I haven't given anybody REASON to make one choice over another, nor have I tried to. I've only explained that the choice exists. None of what I have written here has been intended to give reason as to WHY one might decide to change, only to explain that it CAN be done. Please, take my post to mean only what I say, and not what you think I should be saying based on your own preconceptions about my position.

Well, you've definitely given ample reason to see all this talk of "choice" and "ex-gays" as question begging. If choice is possible or desirable then I am not going out on a limb to ask you 'why change?'. The very idea that sexual orientation is so plastic is pregnant with the idea that it should be molded to a standard, or even the more mild notion you might suggest - that there would be advantages to molding one's orientation to the standard. why fix it if it ain't broke?

but please, i'm not trying to be insulting or disrespectful to you in any way. I just won't naively close my eyes to what i read between the lines of your stated opinion. i'm not going out on a limb to do so. i'm limiting my criticism only to the arguments you're putting forward. Now, when you say i shouldn't read anything into your posts, you are making clear implications that i would be naive to ignore. for you to say you are not judging gays for their orientation or in any way exhorting them to change is way too naive, coy, cute, etc.

furthermore, i think that we've hit on the crux of the issue in the points we're quibbling over...

1. (and here we agree) there should be equal rights.

2. (here we appear to disagree) there should be no exhortation for gays to become straight, nor should they be judged as pathological for chosing to be gay.

Testiculese wrote:Did these ex's simply put down their desires for the same gender, and fall in line witht he norm, or do they really go all out for women now? If that's the case, I would really doubt they were gay to begin with.

And therein lies the problem... if someone wants to believe being gay is something that can't change, they can always pull out the "not really gay" line.

In the case of the guy I know the most about, he didn't so much "put down" his desires for the same gender as he made them shrink over time (and yeah, he was originally truly and actively gay.) He eventually married a woman and pretty much went all out for her, and their oldest is in her 20's now so this wasn't a temporary change. I spent a couple months housesitting for them, and he had a ton of books written by ex-gays whose changes went from "falling in line with the norm" to "completely all-out enthusiastically straight".

fliptw wrote:there isn't a solution that doesn't get the implementor lynched.

On the surface, mine doesn't look like it would be a problem -- certainly, if people are telling the truth about "equal rights", they should be happy with just creating a relationship that nobody can lay prior claim to defining, and giving everyone equal rights through that, and completely removing all legal references to "marriage".

The reason I'd get lynched for my solution is because it uncovers an underlying, unspoken agenda -- that gays want more than equal rights. They want social recognition. They want people to be forced to agree with their lifestyle and to think they're normal. Here, I think they need to re-evaluate their priorities and re-evaluate their sense of self-worth... because if your self-worth depends on other people's opinions of you, you've got problems. I don't need your approval to be happy being a Christian; you shouldn't need my approval to be happy being whatever you want to be. Be happy on your own, and quit trying to force me to approve.

Palzon wrote:Well, you've definitely given ample reason to see all this talk of "choice" and "ex-gays" as question begging.

I think you'll have to ask Goob about that, since he originally asked "is it a choice?" I'm just answering his original question, and responding to those who say change is impossible.

The very idea that sexual orientation is so plastic is pregnant with the idea that it should be molded to a standard, or even the more mild notion you might suggest - that there would be advantages to molding one's orientation to the standard.

There are tons of aspects of your character that are about as plastic as your sexual orientation. These range from how outgoing you are to what music you like to whether or not you beat your wife or kids. Some of these should be conformed to standards, while others should not. Suggesting that orientation can change in no way implies that it SHOULD change. I'll go further, and say that for most people, it shouldn't (that should surprise you... see below.)

Now, of *course* there are advantages to having one particular orientation over another. That's the nature of reality -- there are advantages and disadvantages to almost everything you can think of, from height to taste in music to sexual orientation. But I don't think you should change any of those things for the sake of the advantages you might get from them.

for you to say you are not judging gays for their orientation or in any way exhorting them to change is way too naive, coy, cute, etc.

I didn't say I'm not judging gays... but I did say, just above, that I'm not exhorting most of them to change.

Here's the thing: the only reason I know of to change from being gay is because you, personally, are convinced that it's right to do so. And the only reason I can think of for that happening is if you, personally, are a follower of Jesus Christ and desire to please Him. If you're gay and not a Christian, I'm not going to tell you "don't be gay" -- because making such a change is worthless to you. There's no point in telling someone who isn't a follower of Christ that they should act like one -- if you're not a follower of Christ, act however you want to. Seriously... if you're gay and not a Christian and aren't going to become a Christian, I can't give you any reason to stop being gay, and I'm not going to try. I'm just not interested.

1. (and here we agree) there should be equal rights.

2. (here we appear to disagree) there should be no exhortation for gays to become straight, nor should they be judged as pathological for chosing to be gay.

We do agree on (1). With respect to (2), I'd agree with you with respect to non-Christians, and I doubt you're interested in the theology behind my position relating to my fellow Christians. But, in short, I think Christian gays should be encouraged to follow Christ (because they're, you know, Christian...) and from there it's simply a matter of how to do so. Certainly, there shouldn't be any LEGAL pressure to change sexual orientation.

now i'm with you. And i AM interested in the theology behind it. YOU may be surprised to know that i often read the bible. but i don't think it is necessary for a lengthy digression in this thread.

i completely understand the viewpoint and i'm glad you came right out and said it. they're your beliefs and i'm glad to see that you don't soft peddle it.

though we could digress into a whole discussion about religion at this point, suffice it to say that i respect your freedom to advance the contention that to act as a homosexual goes against your view of christianity. further, i find your contention to be consistent with other familiar views i've known you to propose.

Without digressing too far, but to keep it lively...let me say this. i think there are sects of Christianity that allow for homosexuality. yet this is not problematic for me as an agnostic. for i appreciate the internal consistency of your particular view and the internal consistency of those other christians who would accept homosexuality. i suspect this would be more problematic for the average theist who might respond by saying, "to believe so means that you are not really a christian." As an agnostic, I am free to accept many different kinds of Christians along with those of different sexual orientation.

I have enjoyed our discussion so far and i think it is notable to highlight that as you have agreed with my point # 1, i also concede your revision of my point # 2 since it would, as you have phrased it, still protect minority groups from oppression by the majority. the previous paragraph aside, if you would have christian precepts imposed only on those who choose to be christians, then this is not a point of contention at all.

while it is unimportant to me if we agree or not, i find it interesting that two people of such differing views could find agreement on these two simple but critical points.

I have to ask though--what does #1 mean to Lothar?

What does equal rights mean to you? The same right to marry as a man and a woman, the right to be married to whomever you choose, or the right to have equal rights within the law but with a different name (ala civil union)?

There are tons of aspects of your character that are about as plastic as your sexual orientation
- Lothar

First off, with the following line of discussion I am being dead serious and although some of it can be taken humerously I believe my point is absolutely serious and valid.

It's an interesting idea. What you are suggesting can also be taken in the reverse. By conditioning, do you think you could be gay lothar? Imagine taking a man in the butt. I personally find it disgusting. I don't know how any two men do it. All I can think is that they've got some wires crossed differently than me.

So if this malleability exists, it has to go both ways. You could be turned gay, Drakona could become a lesbian. Have you stopped and thought about your own viability to go the other way? Could a coalition of gay men turn you into loving to be gay? Is being gay something you feel capable of?

a great point that needs to be more thoroughly discussed: innate feelings of attraction or "sexual orientation." I happen to know an entire women's rugby team -- you guessed it, full of lesbians. Many have been kind enough to explain their sexuality to me.

- Many described knowing they were lesbians from a very early age. They got a "special" feeling around other girls, but nothing around boys.

- Many describing wanting as badly as possible to fit in with everyone else and not be gay--including for some sleeping with men they felt absolutely no attraction to, but they felt they had to try to fit in

- These woman later finally came to terms with who they are rather than "I chose to become a lesbian."

What many people don't realize is that for many gays, they wish they weren't gay. You don't always hear this viewpoint with gay rights becoming a huge national issue, but for many it is a source of shame and discontent for years. Many of the women talked to me about how it took years to truly accept themself. They wanted so badly to be normal and be interested in men. They never wanted to alienate less tolerant family members.

I think there may be some people who can be bisexual, but then there are some people who I think seriously have some different things wired up than normal men and women. Many of these women remember natural tendencies of being male from very young ages. It's as if they have the body of a woman but the mind of a man.

On a scientific basis, to me it makes more sense that we're either wired one way or the other. Very black and white. Occasionally maybe some people get wired backwards or for both. I would wager that for some gay people it may be a choice and something that could be stopped. But I also wager for the majority it cannot.

I have heard many stories of these centers that try to reverse people from being gay. I have heard success stories, but for every success stories I have heard many failure stories, including men that went on to having marriages only later to realize they were living a lie.

If it's a choice.. can someone tell me how someone can get sexually aroused by the same sex when they're attracted to the opposite?

I don't even think it's possible to train yourself to do that.

Birdseye wrote:These woman later finally came to terms with who they are rather than "I chose to become a lesbian."

this is how my gay friends also explained it to me. They struggled desparately for some years not to be gay, but finally came to terms with it.

i dated someone for 2 years who had a gay younger brother. he wasnt always gay, he was into girls until he was about 20. i think his mom turned him though. if i grew up with a woman like that, i wouldnt really be into women either :O

he also isnt "gay" in the sense of the word that he has a natural attraction to guys. he had a thing for his female roomate, but he chose to not act on it and date some guy instead.

Birdseye wrote:What does equal rights mean to you?

I explained that in this post as well as most of my other posts on the first page. If you still have questions after this post, please look over those posts carefully to make sure I haven't already answered them.

Essentially, I think government should drop all legal recognition of marriage, create a new relationship that both gay AND straight couples qualify for, and move the rights currently associated with marriage to that new relationship (and the government should explain what the purpose of the relationship is and why they give it those rights.) That means that everyone has equal rights AND equal recognition from the government. Furthermore, nobody can argue about this based on what they think of marriage, because it's not marriage. And nobody can argue this is "separate but equal" because everyone gets the same recognition under the same name. Society can keep bickering about marriage all they want (which they will no matter what we do) but this moves the question away from what we think about MARRIAGE to what we think about EQUAL RIGHTS.

So your question about "the right to be married to whomever you choose" doesn't even apply. Under this framework, marriage itself is completely removed from government consideration -- so if you want to be "married", that's between you and the people you interact with on a daily basis. They can recognize it or not recognize it based on their own ideas about marriage, and you can let that bother you or not bother you based on how much you respect them. That's how it works now, anyway -- if Britney Spears gets married, most of us think of that as a fake marriage anyway, no matter what the law says. This just means that the law doesn't try to tell us who's married or not.

You're one of this board's strongest voices for "you can't legislate morality", so it shouldn't be too hard for you to recognize that you also can't legislate that people have to like you or accept you. Trying to force people into accepting a particular definition of marriage (either way) is, essentially, legislating that people have to like you and accept you. That's never going to work -- no matter what the government says about marriage, some people will see two men holding hands and say "they're not married" and others will see them and say "yes they are"; some people will say "that's acceptable" and others will say "that's not". So we need to take the question of "marriage" out of the hands of the government, and instead have them deal directly with the question of "equal rights".

Like I said before: the reason this idea meets with so much opposition is because it's a perfect solution for meeting the stated goals of both sides. Everyone gets equal rights, nobody has to change what they think about marriage, etc. But the pro-gay-marriage side has an unstated goal that people have to like and accept them, and they want to legislate that. Which, frankly, doesn't make sense from the "you can't legislate morality" crowd...

There are tons of aspects of your character that are about as plastic as your sexual orientation
- Lothar

What you are suggesting can also be taken in the reverse. By conditioning, do you think you could be gay lothar? ... it has to go both ways.

It can be taken in reverse. Kur described one guy who turned gay (at least in a minor sense) and I described one who turned straight (in a pretty major sense.) That's a pretty direct conclusion.

Could it happen for me? No, with good reason.

You can't change orientation on a whim. It's not something that you can be like "I want to be gay now" or "I want to be straight now". It's something you have to want, and something you have to work at. As with most decisions of this type, it's easier to choose one side over the other, and it's a lot of work to switch (recall, for example, my examples of being an alcoholic or being a basketball player.) I'm not willing to work to become gay, so it can't happen for me.

Furthermore, I don't think it works (at least not very well) if you don't want it for its own sake. That is, if you want to change in order to be "normal" or in order to be "accepted" or in order to "fit in", it's not very likely you'll be successful. It only works if you want to change BECAUSE you want to be attracted to women, or BECAUSE you want to be attracted to men, for the sake of that attraction. Because I *want* to be attracted to my wife and only my wife, I couldn't become gay.

Notice that both of these are based on my own choices. It's not that being gay is, itself, a conscious or easy choice -- but I can make choices to drive myself that way or not. I can make choices that will lead me to be more attracted to men, or more attracted to women, or more attracted to one man or one woman in particular. (Heck, I can even make choices that will lead me to be attracted to snowboots -- that's been scientifically established. So to answer Ferno's question, it's actually quite easy to create attractions.)

[needs discussed:] innate feelings of attraction or "sexual orientation."

- Many described knowing they were lesbians from a very early age.

- Many describing wanting as badly as possible to fit in with everyone else and not be gay

- These woman later finally came to terms with who they are rather than "I chose to become a lesbian."

I established the thing about "innate feelings" when I referenced the twin studies. There are innate feelings (genetic and early environmental factors) that do come in to play.

With respect to special feelings when you're young... everyone gets special feelings with respect to random people when they're little. There's generally nothing sexual about them -- but if you choose to interpret them that way, that will have an effect.

With respect to wanting to be normal, I referenced that just above here.

With respect to coming to terms with "who they are": remember that who you ARE is an aggregate of who you used to be, what you've chosen to do, and what you choose now. For example, I *am* a generally loving person -- but there were choices involved that made me more that way or less that way, and there are still choices involved. Some people *are* violent people, and there are choices all along the way that contribute to that. "Who you are" is not a static thing -- it can change over time based on the choices you make.

I think there may be some people who can be bisexual [so] for some gay people it may be a choice and something that could be stopped. But I also wager for the majority it cannot.

For the ex-gay friend I described above, I'd wager that he'd fall into the category you'd assume could not. He was not "bi" -- he's described his story before, and he didn't go for women at all. He was as gay as they come.

I have heard many stories of these centers that try to reverse people from being gay. I have heard success stories, but for every success stories I have heard many failure stories, including men that went on to having marriages only later to realize they were living a lie.

I've heard the success rate is about the same as you get from drug rehab or alcoholism -- yet you wouldn't say those things are "not a choice" because of the difficulty of changing, would you?

I never said change was easy. Only that it was possible. And, furthermore, I've made a point through this thread of referencing the fact that I don't think most people SHOULD change. If you don't have good reason, don't change just to earn my approval. If you're trying to change because you want to be socially accepted, don't. If you're trying to change because you think your religion says being gay is bad, don't (I know this sounds like it contradicts what I said before; the difference here is between "gay is bad" as an isolated statement and "you're designed to be straight" as a complete theology.) ONLY change if there's positive reason for it, for its own sake -- only change if you really, truly want to be attracted to the opposite sex. And even then, be prepared for difficulty.