# One blogger's journey to undo his homosexuality... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 9, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543 "2004-06-09T23:15:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/161 "2004-06-10T23:12:35Z")
> [@Hamish](#): > > I won’t rule out the possibility that science might one day be able to manipulate brain structures, genes, and hormones to the point where they twist our minds and souls into a different shape. > > I only hope we’ve evolved as a society enough not to miuse science in such a way. We don’t yet understand that diversity is sacred and necessary. Such a technology, dumped on us now, would be a catastrophe. I think we’re more or less in agreement on everything that matters. > [@](#): > > There’s a good reason why groups like Exodus International don’t publish their success rates, and why the ex-gay movement keeps losing its spokespeople to the growing number of ex-ex-gays. it would also be quite a good reason (for infinitesimal values of ‘good’) for them to manufacture a success story, as some dopers seem to suspect is being done in the linked page. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/162 "2004-06-10T23:48:05Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > are you really saying you would and most other gays would change being gay if you could? No. Wrong. He’s saying that he would **HAVE CHANGED** , past tense, if it had been possible. When I was in middle school and just starting to realize that I was gay, I probably would have changed as well. If someone back then had said I could take a pill that would leave me exactly the same as I was, except for the one trait that my physical attraction for men would be replaced by the same physical attraction for women, I would’ve taken it. I had been taught that homosexuality was wrong, and I hadn’t given any thought as to _why_ it was supposed to be wrong. And being able to wash it away would’ve definitely made my teens and early twenties a lot easier. But that was almost 20 years ago, and I was very ignorant back then. For me to take it now would mean that all the crap I had to go through was all for nothing. It would mean that the realization I finally came to, that my being homosexual was nothing to be ashamed of, and that I don’t have to live my life as a stereotype, would be ultimately empty. And I have no idea how much my sexual orientation came into play in making me the person I am today. I wouldn’t give that up. But most importantly, I realize that my taking that pill would’ve been wrong. There is absolutely no reason for me to change. Why is anyone offering to help me fix something that’s not broken? > [@vanilla](#): > > It can’t be that good a thing then is what you are saying. Wrong again. It is **not** the same thing as saying “It can’t be a good thing then.” Being homosexual is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It just happens. Having to grow up as a homosexual in a society that hates homosexuals, surrounded by people who are telling you that you’re deviant, perverted, weak-willed, promiscuous, sinful, obsessed with sex, overly effeminate or inappropriately masculine, socially inept, or, charitably, you just have a fundamental brain disorder – that is definitely _not_ a good thing. If I could give you a pill that would make you not care one way or the other whether a person is straight or gay, would you take it? _That’s_ the kind of pill I’d like to see the medical community working on. > [@](#): > > I know a man who changed. No he is not living a lie. > Yes, he was truly gay. > ow he is ot. Praise Og! How do you know he is not living a lie? How do you know he was truly gay? Based on what he tells you of his own experience. However, you have several examples here of our personal experience. Why are our stories less valid? Finally, you keep saying that Jesus “healed” him. I must have missed something in your posts – why did this man need to be “healed?” Did he have a disease? Missing a limb? Some kind of cancer, or a chemical imbalance? I’m confused, because the only thing you told us about him is that he is (or you claim, “was”) homosexual. Homosexuality is not a disorder that needs to be “healed.” If this man has truly come to terms with his sexuality and is living a healthy, happy, functional life, then good for him. There are thousands if not millions of other homosexuals who have come to terms with their sexuality and are living healthy, happy, functional lives, at least as much as society will allow them to. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/163 "2004-06-11T00:03:08Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > That’s silly, a piercing is a foriegn object, and a permanent physical change to the person’s body. You’ve missed the point. You said “If we consider homosexuality innate, that means that any other behaviour could be considered innate.” That’s false for the same reason that it would be false to state that because I have both brown hair and piercings, since the brown hair was innate, the piercings must be too. > [@](#): > > It just doesn’t answer the question of origin, or cause (I hate that word “cause” so if someone has a better one). But it hasn’t covered, or answered what my question was. I stated earlier that other than finding it’s innate or very close to being innate, science has yet to determine which of several possible congenital causes it could be. I’m not quite sure the exact mechanism is relevant to the present discussion, however. > [@](#): > > It just doesn’t answer the question of origin, or cause (I hate that word "He said he was totally homosexual, not to mention a violent person. > He’s been married about 12 years now. > I don’t know his mind or feelings, I know he doesn’t lie. > He said Jesus healed him. Just because you sleep in a garage doesn’t make you a car. > [@](#): > > Yes. And they didn’t work, which means generations of homosexual men were electrocuted, committed, and locked away for absolutely no good reason. You left out forcibly hormone treated, castrated, and in some cases forced to undergo sex reassignment surgery. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/164 "2004-06-11T00:23:58Z")
> [@Hamish](#): > > The real question is not, “Is homosexuality inborn?” The real question is, “Why are homosexuals forced to prove our emotions are real and permanent, when the same point is accepted as self-evident if expressed by a heterosexual?” **Exactly**! That’s so well-put it should be quoted at the top of every message in this thread. That’s why this is such a sensitive topic for so many people, and why you often get a violent reaction from homosexuals when you ask these questions. I haven’t seen any (or many) of these posts as “gay-bashing,” just misunderstanding or overly-clinical curiosity. But still, these are all very loaded questions, many of which have been used for years to imply some moral, physical, spiritual, or mental failure on the part of homosexuals. And these are questions that many of us have asked ourselves over and over again, often in secret. Even if you’re lucky enough to have been reared\* in an area where the overwhelming sentiment isn’t that homosexuality is “wrong,” it’s true everywhere that homosexuality is difficult, just by virtue of its being rare. At least in my case, it’s not just a switch that flips on and you’re comfortable with it; you spend a lot of time questioning it. Straight men and women can ask these questions with a kind of academic detachment, trying to get at the root of “The Gay Problem.” Which elevates homosexuals from the status of “sodomizing abominations” to “medical curiosities.” I’d ask every straight person participating in this thread to take a short time – not too long; 10 or 15 years should do it – to think back on his or her entire upbringing. Think back on your childhood and adolescence, in particular your sexual development. Did you play with gender-appropriate toys? All of your childhood friends – were they the same sex, different sex, or evenly mixed? Sexual abuse as a child? Give details. Your relationship with your parents? Siblings? When you got to school, were you properly socialized? Did you have more male or female friends? When was your first kiss? Your first sexual experience? Was it awkward, or painful? Subsequent times? How many times have you had sex? What’s your longest relationship? How many times do you think about having intercourse with a member of the opposite sex? Do you masturbate? What do you think of while you do it? Now, based on all of that, here’s the question: at what point did you choose to become heterosexual? You can’t say? Apparently you think there’s something wrong with it. Maybe you’re not committed enough. Come on, we need an answer here before we’ll allow you to get married. No answer? Okay, go back to the beginning and start asking yourself all these questions again. Repeat as necessary. And as a side-note, because this is the Pit: could we please give the fucking cheesy innuendo shit a rest already? This topic has been a lot on my mind lately, but I can’t read a single fucking thread on here without somebody’s posting some asinine message hitting on another guy in order to make him uncomfortable. I realize it’s supposed to add some levity, but it only makes the posters seem ignorant and over-preoccupied with sex, and it ends up undermining any real argument. \*The correct, but unfortunate use of the word. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/165 "2004-06-11T01:00:26Z")
I’m not quite understanding what you’re suggesting we do… avoid talking about it? ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/166 "2004-06-11T01:32:32Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m not quite understanding what you’re suggesting we do… avoid talking about it? No, definitely not! I didn’t mean to imply that at all. I just noticed that people are asking why they have to qualify their statements so much, and why some posters are reacting very vehemently (even for the pit) to other posters when they’re both taking roughly the same position. Just thought I’d give some long-winded and probably unnecessary perspective. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/167 "2004-06-11T03:19:54Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > If I could give you a pill that would make you not care one way or the other whether a person is straight or gay, would you take it? . I wouldn’t need to take it; I’ve never cared one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/168 "2004-06-11T03:19:57Z")
> [@Hamish](#): > > I didn’t miss your point, although you maybe missed the blogger’s. He’s not simply trying to go celibate. He wants his god to erase his desires. Well, his reasons may be good or they may be crummy, but the natural contrarian in me says demands support for any individual who declares his will to accomplish something others say is impossible. Perhaps with years of prayer and study and fastng and whatnot, I could suppress my contrariness and turn into a sheep or something. I’ll get back to you on that. > [@](#): > > I’m a big-time fan of free will, too. But I realize it applies to behaviours, and doesn’t always apply to fundamental states of the human soul. Could he abstain from sex? Certainly. Could he remove the desire? No. As an atheist, I’m disinclined to accept arguments that refer to “the human soul”. Neither you nor I know this blogger well enough to know what he’s capable of removing, and individuals have been known to accomplish some pretty dramatic counter-instinctive feats. > [@](#): > > Let’s take another example. Let’s take hunger. Hunger may relate to a bodily state (as can sexual desire), but hunger itself exists entirely in the mind. A person can suppress hunger, can ignore it with varying degrees of success, but cannot make it cease to exist. And hunger – though ultimately a psychological state – is certainly hardwired into us. We don’t pick it up from our parents. Hunger is a _psychological_ state? That’s hysterically preposterous. I suppose stomach-growling is just a psychosomatic illusion, and when my girlfriend’s cat mews repeatedly until food is delivered, the cat is just expressing a deep psychological imperative. Of course, that particular cat is a mere anecdotal example, so I don’t expect you to take it as evidence. > [@](#): > > I have personal experience of the state of mind that’s afflicted our blogger, and yes, I do feel that gives me more of a right to speak on this subject than someone who has not. I have known people who’ve tried this road and come away wounded, but I have never met a person who walked it and came back unscathed. Perhaps you should get out more. Anecdotal evidence of negative results has never and can never prove that something is absolutely impossible. You’d have to conduct a survey that goes beyond your personal circle of associates and even _then_, you couldn’t prove the blogger’s goal to be impossible. Heck, I stipulated the odds against him at 50 billion to one, which should suggest I have rather more than a teensy-weensy doubt, but that doesn’t diminish my desire to see him succeed. And you have exactly as much “right” to discuss this subject as I do, or anyone in a free society does. > [@](#): > > This process is harmful. It is as harmful as anoerexia or heroin use, and to encourage it is to encourage self-destructive behaviour. We can’t live his life for him – he’ll discover it on his own, as so many others have done before – but would you get out of your damn cheerleader’s outfit and pompoms for a minute? Jeez. But I like that outfit. It shows off my legs. I’ll accept that for the vast vast majority of people who have attempted what the blogger is describing (assuming, mind you, that the blogger is not playing some silly troll game), the results were unpleasant. I see no reason whatsoever to conclude that it is impossible for one individual to succeed. As a minor additional note, I’d like to point out that nowhere did I state or imply that _all_ gay people could change, and it’s only a lack of will that stops them. I’ll happily stipulate that at least 99.9999999% of people, gay or straight, could not successfully make the transition even if they were interested in trying (of course, by doing so, I risk that wrath of a prideful person who says “Whaddyamean, I _can’t?!_ I can do any damn thing I want!”). I find the idea that there may be a one-in-a-billion individual who succeeds to be positive and worth supporting _in and of itself_. Judging from the self-loathing in the blogger’s writing, I’m pretty sure that the one-in-a-bill won’t be _him_, but it might eventually be someone else. As far as I can tell, you’re maintaining the blogger’s goal is absolutely impossible (and apparantly offensive in some way, but that’s not my problem and it shouldn’t be his), while I contend that it’s only extraordinarily unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/169 "2004-06-11T03:30:22Z")
Here’s a question: since you have admitted that what the blogger is putting himself through is extremely likely to be harmful, why are you pinning your hopes on some undemonstrated chance of him succeeding, rather than on those (rather more likely) of him “failing” - i.e. deciding to accept himself as he is - as soon as possible and with a minimum of psychological fallout? It’s like saying you hope someone who is about to jump from a fifty-storey building using a bedsheet as a parachute survives the landing, rather than that someone helps him get back inside. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/170 "2004-06-11T03:33:04Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Hunger is a _psychological_ state? That’s hysterically preposterous. I suppose stomach-growling is just a psychosomatic illusion… Everyone seems to be discussing sexual desire as a psychological state, and there are physical signs of that too. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/171 "2004-06-11T04:02:18Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Here’s a question: since you have admitted that what the blogger is putting himself through is extremely likely to be harmful, why are you pinning your hopes on some undemonstrated chance of him succeeding, rather than on those (rather more likely) of him “failing” - i.e. deciding to accept himself as he is - as soon as possible and with a minimum of psychological fallout? Assuming the blogger does eventually fail (a safe bet, to be sure, though I’m not calling it a _sure_ bet), he could spend years in self-inflicted agony or he could shrug and give up tomorrow. The extent of his of pain is entirely up to him and his own personal threshold, and since those are entirely out of my control, I will feel not one molecule of responsibility. This particular situation is for me like watching a sporting event in which I have no financial stake, but mere curiosity about the ending. It would be entertaining to watch one of the athletes pull off an amazing borderline-miraculous once-in-a-lifetime play, though I acknowledge the odds in favour of this are slim. > [@](#): > > It’s like saying you hope someone who is about to jump from a fifty-storey building using a bedsheet as a parachute survives the landing, rather than that someone helps him get back inside. The analogy fails on one key point. If he was _truly_ determined to jump, then no-one would be able to “help him back inside”. And if he _does_ jump, I’d prefer he survive rather than die, even though everyone else who jumps dies and it’s clear the odds of survival are extremely slim. If he’s _not_ determined to jump, than my feelings regarding the outcome are moot. In any case, my perspective is someone watching the event from a distance. I didn’t put him on the roof, I didn’t encourage him to climb to the roof, and I’m not going to encourage him to jump (I haven’t contacted the blogger and have no intention of doing so). If he _does_ jump, though, I hope he survives though all others haven’t. This is not though some altrustic motive; I just think it would ke kinda cool if someone could survive a fifty-story plunge with a bedsheet parachute. > [@](#): > > Everyone seems to be discussing sexual desire as a psychological state, and there are physical signs of that too. I have no problem accepting that some or most aspects of sexual desire involve physical “hard-wiring” of the brain. Whether or not that wiring can ever be bypassed or overwritten _even by one individual in a billion_ remains unclear to me. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/172 "2004-06-11T04:41:58Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > The analogy fails on one key point. If he was _truly_ determined to jump, then no-one would be able to “help him back inside”. And if he _does_ jump, I’d prefer he survive rather than die, even though everyone else who jumps dies and it’s clear the odds of survival are extremely slim. A good point. I should have said that he is planning to jump because he’s depressed – which is more or less our blogger’s situation. In that case, I would much rather root for someone to help him back inside. I guess I don’t see this as the heroic test of the human spirit you seem to. I just see it as really sad and needless. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/173 "2004-06-11T11:34:04Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > A good point. I should have said that he is planning to jump because he’s depressed – which is more or less our blogger’s situation. He may or may not be depressed, but his stated intent is to change his orientation, not end his life. An equally valid version of your analogy involves a six-foot plunge into a big mud puddle, with the end result being (most likely) a messy but nonlethal splat or (highly unlikely) a perfectly clean landing on the edge of the puddle. Possibly nobody has managed the clean landing yet, and possibly nobody ever will, but many still try. > [@](#): > > I guess I don’t see this as the heroic test of the human spirit you seem to. I just see it as really sad and needless. Oh, I’m reasonably sure it _is_ sad and needless, but if he’s _determined_ to go ahead, why would I root for his failure? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/174 "2004-06-11T12:23:56Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > Guin, spectrum; > > He was a deacon in a church I had belonged to. > > He said he was totally homosexual, not to mention a violent person. > He’s been married about 12 years now. > I don’t know his mind or feelings, I know he doesn’t lie. > He said Jesus healed him. Well, THAT’S scientific evidence if I ever heard it. Do you think it’s possible that he just stopped sleeping with men? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/175 "2004-06-11T12:27:10Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > spectrum- I don’t speak supportively of therapy. > I don’t know if he had “therapy.” > > From what I know (and I have’t seen him in years) Jesus just healed him all by Himself. > And his wife does know he claims he used to be gay. > She believes he is not anymore. “She” is a ninny. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/176 "2004-06-11T13:19:57Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Oh, I’m reasonably sure it _is_ sad and needless, but if he’s _determined_ to go ahead, why would I root for his failure? Because a rapid and relatively painless ‘failure’ may result in his finding the support he needs and his coming to accept himself. That’s a story I’ve heard rather more often. ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/177 "2004-06-11T15:36:09Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, his reasons may be good or they may be crummy, but the natural contrarian in me says demands support for any individual who declares his will to accomplish something others say is impossible. Problem is, I can’t ignore the reality of context. This isn’t a sports game. This isn’t a video game. The impossibility he’s defying will most likely involve his ripping himself to shreds with no result, and it’s only natural that those of us who’ve walked that road would want to steer him away from it. I sure as hell would like to get refunded for the five years I wasted on this. The next best thing is encouraging others not to waste them. Nor do I see it as courageous. It is cowardice. It is a bending to the will of others – to the forces of organized religion, and the still-powerful voice of prejudice. Courageous is making your life in a homophobic world. Courageous is fighting tooth-and-nail for your rights, and for the sort of self-respect that’s passed to others on a silver platter. Courageous is coming out to your parents, especially if you suspect they’ll reject you. Courageous is holding hands with your partner on any street besides the two or three designated as a “Gay Village.” There is no courage in knuckling under the forces of tradition and self-loathing, and pursuing the kind of failure that one can’t help but regret later on. > [@](#): > > As an atheist, I’m disinclined to accept arguments that refer to “the human soul”. You don’t have to be religious to accept the idea of a soul. Our society has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. We got rid of much of the ridiculousness that goes with organized religion, but we’ve also forgotten the fundamental realities that used to be described in solely religious terms. I am not Christian, so I am not using the term “soul” in Christian terms. If that’s the baggage you bring to the term, it is your own. Substitute his “psychology” (from the Latin _psyche_, from the Greek _psukhé_, meaning “life, breath, or soul”) for his “soul” if it pleases you. > [@](#): > > Neither you nor I know this blogger well enough to know what he’s capable of removing, and individuals have been known to accomplish some pretty dramatic counter-instinctive feats. When finding out about another country, do you trust the person who’s lived there all their life, or a blurb you read in a book? When did personal experience – first-hand experience – start counting for so little? When did the combination of first-hand experience _and_ scientific knowledge start counting for less than some random poster’s random thoughts on the issue? Your right. Human beings do manage some quasi-miraculous feats. But there are a few limits. To my knowledge, there is not a person on earth who’s managed to escape death for a few hundred years. To my knowledge, not one has willed themselves to stop aging. And to my knowledge, no one has ever managed to erase their sexual desires, merely suppressed and controlled them > [@](#): > > Hunger is a _psychological_ state? That’s hysterically preposterous. I suppose stomach-growling is just a psychosomatic illusion, and when my girlfriend’s cat mews repeatedly until food is delivered, the cat is just expressing a deep psychological imperative. The first definition is my dictionary (_Canadian Oxford_) begins “A feeling of pain, weakness, or discomfort…” Last I checked, feelings were the brain’s interpretation of data, not the data itself. Hunger is not the lack of nutrients or the emptiness in the stomach that triggers that feeling. It is the brain’s recognition of that fact, and the urging of the will to act on that fact. It is not inconceivable that a form of brain damage could erase the sensation we call hunger. No form of brain damage, obviously, could fill the stomach or replenish the nutrients. It could only remove the awareness. Likewise, I doubt that anything short of a physical alteration – some form of lobotomy – could really remove homosexual or heterosexual desire, as opposed to simply suppressing it. > [@](#): > > Of course, that particular cat is a mere anecdotal example, so I don’t expect you to take it as evidence. Where was I opposed to anecdotal examples? I have presented both anecdotal and scientific examples. So far, you have brought nothing to the table besides hungry cats, and the blogger himself, who many of us recognize (from personal experience, from the experience of our friends) to be halfway along on a journey that inevitably leads with failure of some kind. > [@](#): > > Heck, I stipulated the odds against him at 50 billion to one, which should suggest I have rather more than a teensy-weensy doubt, but that doesn’t diminish my desire to see him succeed. And it’s your “desire to see him succeed” that bothers me. I have seen you posting in thread after thread on this board, and I’ve never once seen you cheer on anyone else in anything else. Where are all the cheers for a gay person actually trying to make a life themselves in this culture. Hell, we don’t even full legal rights in all ten provinces and three territotires, and even once we do, there’ll be the long, hard climb to social acceptance. > [@](#): > > And you have exactly as much “right” to discuss this subject as I do, or anyone in a free society does. And a Luddite has every legal right to discourse on the inner functioning of a computer. If I really want to find out how computers work, though, I’ll accept the word of a professor at MIT over his, thank you. > [@](#): > > I’ll accept that for the vast vast majority of people who have attempted what the blogger is describing (assuming, mind you, that the blogger is not playing some silly troll game), the results were unpleasant. I see no reason whatsoever to conclude that it is impossible for one individual to succeed. I don’t think it is. But let’s suppose, in the future, some form of medical intervention succeeds in altering a person’s basic brain chemistry. Would I cheer on the people who used it? No way in hell. The big proponants would be what I call the predatory churches, and they would prey on teenagers with a desperate urge to confrom. This is genocide by surgery. It’s an ugly situation that would impoverish our society, empty it of its beautiful and necessary diversity, like sex-selection clinics or surgery to alter skin colour. > [@](#): > > I find the idea that there may be a one-in-a-billion individual who succeeds to be positive and worth supporting _in and of itself_. And I don’t. I’m sorry, but the idea of egging on some desperate on a self-destructive path, because you get some personal pleasure of them enacting some bizarre twist of a clichéd Hollywood movie (The little guy who suicceeds, against all odds) is just _wrong_ to me. YMMV. > [@](#): > > As far as I can tell, you’re maintaining the blogger’s goal is absolutely impossible (and apparantly offensive in some way, but that’s not my problem and it shouldn’t be his), while I contend that it’s only extraordinarily unlikely. Offensive cuts to the heart of it, and it can’t be pushed aside. A few years ago, a study by American geneticist Dean Hamer suggested the possibility of a gay gene (actually, a sequence of genes) on the X chromosome. Now, those studies were never successfully replicated, but at the time, people thought they’d found it. Now, you might have thought this was good news, but of course, the possibility of a gay gene raised the possibility of sexual-orientation selection, of the aborting of gay foetuses, of gene therapy or something else on people who already had it. Do you know what it’s like, to be a part of a community that is threatened with being erased by a misuse of science? Do you know what it’s like, to fight and fight and fight, to make a life for yourself, only to risk losing it to some Mengele of our era? It is offensive. It’s offensive and cruel in this case, because he will not succeed, but he’ll suffer on his way there. It’s offensive and scary if they do find the gay gene before our society’s evolved enough not to use that knowledge to further homogenize the world. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/178 "2004-06-11T17:35:19Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Did anyone notice the guy is now linking to our thread? In that case, I’d like to mention the story of Balam. It teaches the important lesson that the Lord may speak through an ass. I might have been just another ass yesterday. I’ll probably be just another ass tomorrow. But here and now, I am the instrument through which the Lord speaks. Homosexuality is no sin. To use another human, man or woman, as an object to slake your desires is sinful. To seduce another human through deceit is sinful. To betray vows of fidelity made to another, or to lay with some one who is bound by such vows is sinful. To join your body with another in honesty, and respect is no sin. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/179 "2004-06-11T18:49:44Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Because a rapid and relatively painless ‘failure’ may result in his finding the support he needs and his coming to accept himself. That’s a story I’ve heard rather more often. Well, exactly herein lies the problem; the notion of him “coming to accept himself” as though “himself” was some immutable unchangable concept to which everything must adapt. As far as I’m concerned, the blogger is (or should be) free to define and alter “himself” at will. The idea that he must conform to “himself” is inextricably mixed up with the idea that he must conform to how _others_believe “himself” should be. Exactly _who_ is saying, and with what authority, that a man cannot change and should be discouraged from trying? Anyone can argue that the odds are greatly against the blogger, and give their reasoning why, but to say it is impossible is something I find borderline offensive. Well, mildly borderline offensive. A little. > [@Hamish](#): > > When finding out about another country, do you trust the person who’s lived there all their life, or a blurb you read in a book? I should point out that the “country” you describe (a community of gay men, I assume) is not a monolithic entity wherein all individuals have the same opinions, beliefs, talents and abilities. Thus, speaking to one person, even if they’ve lived there all their lives, only reveals the opinions of that person and not a complete picture of the entire “country”. Unless you’ve been elected as spokesman/representative by the citizens of your country, you have no special authority to speak on their behalf. Sorry. > [@](#): > > I don’t think it is [impossible for one individual to succeed.] Good. We agree. ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543/180 "2004-06-11T19:04:44Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Thus, speaking to one person, even if they’ve lived there all their lives, only reveals the opinions of that person and not a complete picture of the entire “country”. Unless you’ve been elected as spokesman/representative by the citizens of your country, you have no special authority to speak on their behalf. Sorry. First of all, you never did answer if the experiences of one person would be a better source than a short blurb in a book. Second of all, my analogy breaks down, of course, because it’s not just one person, it’s many, many people with first-hand experience, and all reputable scientific bodies with something to say on the matter. There are a few of the former just in this thread, and quite of few of the latter linked. > [@](#): > > Good. We agree. Ach. that came out wrong. My brain altered “it’s not impossible” to “it’s possible.” _Mea culpa_ for the awkward phrasing, but surely my next paragraph should have made the meaning clear? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-bloggers-journey-to-undo-his-homosexuality/249543.md?page=10)