I don’t think that’s what he’s saying, though. You’re bending over backwards to take offense. Stop that right now, young man.
What I believe he’s saying (and he can correct me if I’m wrong) is that sometimes people will believe that they can’t accomplish a goal simply because others have told them they can’t. This may or may not apply to homosexuality, and likely doesn’t.
But let’s apply it to something else. Suppose common wisdom stated that people over 300 pounds could never ever lose that weight. As a result, many obese people don’t even try, then spread the word of the impossibility of weight loss. Does this actually mean that weight loss is an impossibility, or does it mean that current wisdom is faulty?
On a board devoted to fighting ignorance, should we blindly accept common wisdom? Or should we occasionally dust it off and examine its value?
I did say that psychological development seemed unlikely to me, just because there are gay, lesbian, and bisexual people from every kind of family structure who had every kind of upbringing.
Fetal development would seem to me to be a fairly reasonable explanation. Note “genetic” doesn’t imply hereditary, and “congenital” doesn’t imply genetic.
Oh, come on. With a nice ball gag and harness, why not?
Ah, but it’s **not ** being treated as dogma, but rather as a conclusion that has been reached after inummerable scientific studies and analyses. How many times must one retrace the same studies before one concludes that the immutability of orientation is an established fact?
I am content to leave dogma to Crafter_Man and the rest of the Bible thumpers.
[quote]
But let’s apply it to something else. Suppose common wisdom stated that people over 300 pounds could never ever lose that weight. As a result, many obese people don’t even try, then spread the word of the impossibility of weight loss. Does this actually mean that weight loss is an impossibility, or does it mean that current wisdom is faulty?
First, you’re arguing from a faulty premise–morbidly obese people can lose weight and keep it off. But let us say that weight loss were as immutable as orientation and backed by the same degree of scientific evidence. Then you come along ans say, “Maybe it ain’t so.” Fair enough–prove it. On one hand, we have the weight of evidence for immutability; should we simply ignore it, pretend it doesn’t exist merely on your say so, without demanding some proof from you?
“Common wisdom”? I suppose the citation from major psychological organizations I posted aren’t of any more relevance than that?
People have “dusted it off and examined its value” at great length and with scientific rigour. This has resulted in the psychological and psychiatric professions taking the stances I mentioned. It’s not like we’re the first people to have had this idea.
Wil Wheaton looked very, very good in red. And he was closest to my age. And he was always smarter than the adults around him, and it got him in trouble. Aside from the looking good in red (I don’t look good in any color), Wesley was the only character I could relate to.
I do not believe a gay person consciously chooses to be gay. As if he/she wakes up one morning and says, “Hmm, I’d like to be gay.” I think it’s more complex than that. None-the-less, I still don’t buy the argument that a gay is “born that way.” By that line of argument, we could explain all behavior as being “born that way.”
Not I am not saying that being gay is akin to being a child molester, so please don’t flame me on this. I’m simply trying to make a point, not a 1:1 comparison. But you never hear someone say a child molester is “born that way.” Why not? You also never hear a car thief is “born that way.” Why not? Is a man who walks out on his family “born that way?” Is a woman who abandons her children “born that way?” Again, I’m not saying being gay is even close to being a car thief, child molester, or whatever. I’m just wondering why we conveniently explain certain behaviors as being “born that way” while with others we blame poor upbringing and lack of responsibility & morals.
Originally Posted by spectrum
If it can be changed, then it is a choice. If it can be changed, anyone can change it if they try hard enough, and those of us who have tried and failed are just failed, pathetic human beings.
I disagree with your statement that if it can be changed, it is a choice. It’s simply not true. Cancer can be “changed”, but it certainly isn’t a choice. Sexual orientation can easily be looked at in the same way. And I’m not saying it CAN be changed (not now, anyway). But the possibility is certainly there. Nothing surprises me anymore. But it still wouldn’t make it a choice.
Wesley didn’t wear red until Picard made him a full ensign. By that time Wheaton was taller and much better looking, and the character had changed from ‘annoying, whiny, bedwetting boy genius’ to ‘troubled teen genius’.
Re ‘Therapy’
It’s like Creationism. All the scientific evidence suggests that orientation cannot be changed. Exodus and such insist that it can, not due to any evidence or facts, but as a matter of faith.
Homosexuality was listed as a disorder in the DSM for how many years? During that time, plenty of scientists were sure that orientation could be changed. Nobody found a method that worked.
I know nobody here means an offense, myself included, but I just cant help but cringe when homosexuality is compared to cancers and excess weight. (I know it isn’t meant that way, and I just want to point out that I definately do not mean anything by my analogies- I would imagine the other posters feel the same way)
See, I guess this is my problem. Somehow, at least from what I see folks post and out IRL conversations, this “immutability of orientation” is being hailed as the result of homosexuality being genetic.
And again, no one HERE is saying orientation should be challenged. That still doesn’t prove it’s origins.
I’m with tdn, I think that NONE of us know the cause. And unless there are mulitudes of studies done on people from conception on through adulthood, and then using the data from their upbringing, we aren’t EVER going to know, unless scientist are able to isolate it genetically.
Well, actually I do think child molesters are “born that way”. I think car thiefs and child abandoners “choose” to be that way.
Yes, there is still lots of study to be done in the field, but most experts feel there is probably something genetic to it.
I’m of the belief that it shouldn’t matter whether or not a person chose it or was borne to it. Why on earth would anyone give a shit who’s sleeping with who? It is Gladys Kravitzism in the extreme.
The same reason I criticize people who do drugs or who don’t get treatment for mental disorders: I consider it immoral to stand by and watch people do great harm to themselves.
All the reputable mental health organizations in this country recognize that “reparative” attempts on homosexuals are dangerous, immoral and not effective. Those who push gays into them are monsters.
Plus, by attempting it, they lend “support” to a movement which is doing great violence to thousands of gays around the country, and which would like to see us all forced into such reeducation programs.
It’s “no” because the people you are dealing with here are at peace with their sexuality, more or less. Had you asked them during their painful or awkward teen years, they likely would have swallowed the pill with glee.
The sad bit, the real indictment of the hidebound bigotry of our heterosexist society, is that you shouldn’t feel obliged in any way to change.
Let us posit that sexual orientation is changeable, that one can flit from hetero to homo and back again. . . what business is it of anyone else’s? Why do you need the approval of others to live your life as you see fit? Frankly, the born-again prigs who believe they have been divinely appointed to be the arbiters of morals for everyone else can piss up a short rope, them and all their English kniggits. Their father smelt of elderberries and their mother was a hamster.
Oh, and forget Wesley and the rest, give me Chief O’Brien (Colm Meaney is * yummy*!)
To be honest, we don’t know why gay people are gay, but we do know that orientation is established very early in life and that it is immutable, so “born that way” is as good a hypothesis as we can find for now.
While I do understand that you are not comparing being gay to being a pedophile or a car thief, you still seem to be taking the view that gayness is inherently negative. Why? Could we not view it as simply one segment of the dsexual spectrum. After all, we don’t treat being White as the default setting for race and being Black or Asian or Latino as unnatural perversions, do we? (At least, not any more).
OK, let’s look at it this way. Suppose I gave you a lobotomy. Would you still be gay? How about if I killed you? You wouldn’t be gay then, would you? That’s a change, and it’s entirely possible. Now don’t get me wrong – I like you, and would never ever want to harm you. But it’s possible that I could use those methods to stop your rampant gayness. Is it too high a price to pay? Obviously.
So are there more practical and moral ways to change you? I’ll take your cites at face value and say no. Are there less practical and less moral ways to do it? Such as brainwashing? I’d say it’s not impossible. But matters of practicality and morality prevent us from exploring that. And I’m all good and fine with that.
So can a person change his sexuality by simply wishing it to be so? If sexuality is entirely a psychological phenomenon (as opposed to genetic), I don’t see why not. The mind can do some pretty amazing things. But it would be a huge task. It would fail an overwhelming part of the time. And in the real world, it probably can’t be done. But in theory, it’s possible.
I’d like to start off with a reitterance of what the psychological professionals who have researched human sexuality for more than 35 years have to say - to wit, from the American Psychological Association:
I dunno - these guys are the experts I turn to in matters of mental health.
Agreed, 100%. Well put.
Even when you know such efforts would be immensely damaging to the individual? No one will doubt it’s his choice to make, but cheering him on? That’s like egging on a jumper or lighting the match for someone after they’ve doused themselves in gasoline.
Anything is possible, but the risks you take to do so - as you say, for no good reason - are enormous and ultimately self-defeating. IMHO, at least.
“Irresponsible.” That’s a good word choice in this circumstance.
Everyone falls somewhere along this continuum. Even I can admit to being a 5.99999 (repeating) as I lust after one woman and one woman only. (Sadly, the lovely Sophia Loren has stopped returning my phone calls [ ] since I became engaged to Q. [ ])
I think you are confusing “common wisdom” with “decades of research worth of proof.”
Alright, established science, then. We should never question established science? I’d remind you that by doing so, scientific findings improve.
And yet this same science cannot explain the origins of homosexuality. Should we dig in with that stance and examine the issue no further? That’s not science that’s dogma.
] since I became engaged to Q. [