You’d stop my behavior, but you wouldn’t change my orientation. I’d be dead, but I’d still have been gay.
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.
[/quote]
You might not, but there are some folks who think killing me would be doing their Christian duty. After all, the Bible prescribes death for men who lie with men.
You seem to think that “theory” is synonymous with “wildly unsubstantiated guess.” Perhaps that’s so in popular usage, but in science a theory is a general principle backed by data to explain certain set of phenomena. You need to bring something more to the table than a bald assertion if you wish to contradict the vast amount of data backing immutability.
But where does that get anyone, tdn? I mean, if we assume that, through brain surgery or Clockwork Orange treatment or something, or even through intensive therapy, you could make a gay man stop being gay, how does that make it worthwhile to attempt the change in the first place? There’s an implication there that there’s something fundamentally wrong with homosexuality.
I think that’s a problem with debating whether or not you can make a gay man straight. If it’s not a choice, why is it wrong to be gay? Since the only real problems people have with homosexuality come from religious grounds, and since the religious argument is that homosexuals are turning their backs on God, it’s a complete contradiction. On the one hand, we have to alter their brain chemistry for them not to be gay, but on the other, we condemn them for their activity based on the premise that it’s a choice.
That’s silly, a piercing is a foriegn object, and a permanent physical change to the person’s body.
What it is REALLY like is like saying 'I was born with the absolute immutable need to express myself in this manner, in other words, putting pieces of metal in my skin" NOT in the physical manifestation(the metal object) of the need to express by itself.
Anyway, I agree with him. Saying “I was born that way” COULD be extended to any and all behaviours. and has been extended to many, not just homosexuality.
Alcoholism for instance. The propensity to addictive personalities is said to be something one is “born with”.
Absolutely, so like I said, where’s the lab work? By all means, question the conventional wisdom, but you don’t do that by declaring, “Well, maybe it ain’t so.” That’s just making a claim with no substance behind it.
Who said that we should examine the evidence no further? What I’m saying is that you have to bring evidence to back up your statements. So far, you’ve brought zip, and we have have brought plenty.
Frankly, you are beginning to argue like a creationist does, denying the moutain of evidence for a scientific theory and thinking that simple negation is enough to win the argument.
That’s such a stupid statement that it is beneath response, but here you go: homosexuality is not a behavior. Not even remotely. It is an orientation. A gay person who never has sex with another member of his/her own gender is just as gay as a real life version of Brian Kinney would be.
It doesn’t, as I’ve been saying all along. Even if science developed an anti-gay pill, I would oppose its use. And it’s clear that science isn’t about to do any such thing in the first place.
All that you, and others have posted here, have been reports and studies of phsychologists saying why homosexuality EXISTS. Not how it CAME to exist. And none of it is from, as I originally asked, scientific research.
Sorry, my fault, I didn’t define what I meant by scientific. I mean biologists, medical researchers and those in the fields covering human physiology. Yes, psychology is “a” science. And again, as I’ve said in many other posts.
I don’t believe that the origin, or “cause” whatever it may be, in ANY way changes that which you and others have cited from psychologists, that of orientation not being able to be changed, and/or that it’s a valid way of being.
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.
First of all, comparing me to a creationist is fightin’ words.
Secondly, when I say “theoretically”, I mean wild-ass guess. Yes, I am aware of the difference, and I realize that I am throwing that word around irresponsibly.
My bad.
But the evidence you bring to the table was collected by psychologists who were working within a moral framework of a clinical setting. I deal with this every day, from my job (in a hospital where clinical data is collected – by me – constantly) to my girlfriend (who is a psychologist and sets up research experiments all the time). Plus, I took the IRB exam and passed with flying colors.
The thing is, within that framework, there are only so many things that researchers are allowed to do. Psychologists are not allowed to give lobotomies to see if someone becomes less fabulous. It’s immoral and the IRB would come down hard on them. And that’s a good thing.
But then the results of such studies apply only to research done within that framework. Data that’s available only from outside that framework is anybody’s guess. Had the same work been done by Dr. Joseph Mengele, the data might look quite different. Not that I’d want that crazy fucker experimenting on anyone.
So you’re right, I have brought no evidence to the party, but the evidence you bring is only applicable to a subset of all possible situations.
So I can still hold onto my theory that given an odd set of circumstances, orientation can be changed. And by theory, I mean wild-ass guess.
[QUOTE=captaindoesnotlikeyou]
Ug. I started from the very beginning of that and immediately got the feeling that this blog isn’t being written by some tortured gay college student, but a middle aged member of some anti-gay group.
[QUOTE]
No, I think it’s for real. “Ben’s” blog links to another blog written by a young man with a whole lotta things in common with “Ben.” I’d name it, but I’m not sure if that would be ethical or not.
Extrapolated all that from a one-word answer, did you? Did you ask why they said “no”?
In my case, it would invalidate everything I went through as an adolescent, all of the work I’ve done for equality, and would invalidate the very special relationship I’ve been in for the past eleven years. But since I would answer “no” to your overly simplistic question, I must want to choose to be gay, right?
As I said before, being generally not liked and more short-tempered than most, I am NOT holding myself up as a representative example of all gays on this board.
But your friend is either still gay, or was bisexual. No gay person can invert their sexuality like that, anymore than I could will myself to grow blond hair and recolor my eyes green.
Well, what about genetic alteration science that is all over the place right now? It isn’t perfected, but IF homosexuality turned out to be a genetic issue, and IF they were able to massage genes to make someone hetero, wouldn’t that count?
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.
I am naturally brunette. If I could I would most definitely wilkl myself to blonde.
It costs a lot to get it done.
This, of course, means theres nothing wrong with being brunette, its just not my preference.
He does lie. He is a liar. He’s an agent of evil, and a soldier in the Army of Hate that hopes to someday wipe out all gays in America through brainwashing and Bible banging.
Gay reparation is one of the greatest evils in America today. By supporting, he – and you – are partially culpable for the pain, suffering and death it causes.
There will be a special place in Hell for the reparators.
