Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Lief Erikson]

You've picked out one study that supports your position. I know there are more. Exodus International has said that most studies indicate a high degree of change through sexual orientation changing programs. While I don't know whether that's true, there are clearly a significant number of studies that claim differently, and making generalizations that they're all flawed is a little presumptuous.

It would take me a large amount of research to be able to form a truly educated opinion in the issue . I have my biases, and you yours, and we both have our personal experiences and statistics and data from different sources. Perhaps you're right that insufficient studies have been done on the issue; I don't know whether that's true or not. Bumping against the boundaries of one's own knowledge is a very, very irritating experience. One is forced to do a great deal of research, but being naturally lazy, is often disinclined to put forth all the effort.

About what you said regarding bisexuality, I agree that it should be taken into account in surveys. I don't know whether or not it is. But as the percentage of the population that is bisexual is even smaller than the percentage that is homosexual (according to the Gay & Lesbian Task Force), which is itself small, it seems unlikely that a significant proportion of the people entering a sexual orientation changing program are actually confused bisexuals.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well the problem is that theres not a lot of studies done on this field.

That is certainly possible, though I expect that there is a lot of good data out there that you and I just haven't read.

I think that there is a lot of prejudice from liberals against groups that attempt to help people change their sexual inclination, though I expect there also is bias in favor of those groups from many fundamentalists.

[Rían]

Multiple problems with that article, here's a few:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And this was after the fundies stacked the study with cherry picked choice subjects! Pretty sad really.

I never saw ANYWHERE where it stated that they asked for a blind sample from Exodus. From what I read, it looks like they were asking for people who felt they had successfully changed from homo to het, and that's what Exodus provided. Looks like a set-up to slam Exodus, to me.

A problem is that these “therapists� consider agreeing to be celibate as "curing" someone of homosexuality when its nothing of the kind as I said in my earlier post.

And you're missing the POV that I described. From the POV of people wanting to stop homosexual behaviors, they are ENTIRELY successful if a person changes from having homosexual sex to being celibate.

Furthermore, they ignore the whole concept of bisexuality. And clearly if someone likes BOTH sexes then its not the same as “curing� someone who strictly goes for the same sex as them. Right?

Same as above.

So theres a tremendous amount of data manipulation and bad science involved in this debate from those who have a vested interest in making it look good.

It's certainly on both sides.

I'll try to hit some more points from the article later - my daughter wants the computer now!

I'll just hit one more, that I think is THE critical one, from my POV and IMO from the POV of people in Exodus - SO WHAT if it's hard, and the success rate isn't very high? SO WHAT? (and remember, the primary measurement of success, for THEM, is stopping the BEHAVIOR). Since when do you decline to do something that you think is right because there isn't a high prob. of success? What if Frodo, after he said he'd take the ring, was told, "There's an extremely low prob. of success - you'd better not try it. And BTW, you other 8 guys that said you'd help him - you'd better drop it, too!"

Oh, you people of small heart ...

There's thousands of people who are tremendously grateful to how Exodus and organizations like them helped them - THOUSANDS!

I say good for Exodus.

[Lief Erikson]

I will just point out that they say the success rate is far higher than 3%.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

remember, the primary measurement of success, for THEM, is stopping the BEHAVIOR

What's the point of that? If I wanted, I could just stay celibate all my life. Though of course, I'm not addicted to sex like some people, heterosexual and homosexual, are. I don't see why they would have a program for trying to convince people to avoid homosexual behavior. There would be much more reason for removing the thoughts though, in my opinion. And I thought that that was what Exodus was trying to do . (Goes back to the website to check it out)

[Lief Erikson]

Here is a link from Exodus International to 31 studies that have been conducted, testing whether people's desires can be changed from homosexual to heterosexual orientation.
http://www.newdirection.ca/a_change.htm
They took bisexuality into account. They listened to results from the subjects of the test. Here is the conclusion of the research of these studies:

Our research has shown the statement "homosexuals can't change" to be a generalization. Various sources provide evidence for a partial or full shift in sexual orientation. Such evidence does not mean that every homosexual person should change. It does not mean that everyone can change. It does not mean that change is easy. It does mean that, at least for some people, change of sexual orientation is possible.

Exodus International's overall experience that inner hurts or dysfunctional family relationships are a common thread among most homosexuals is an indicator that homosexuality isn't genetic. Also, the fact that people can change indicates that homosexuality isn't genetic.

The research project was not focused on changing behaviors but attractions.

[Rían]

I disagree about the primary focus, but will have to get back to you ... I"m heading out for dinner with hubby in a few minutes ... pizza on the way for the kids ... geez, it's so wonderful to have a babysitting-age kid now!!!!!!!!

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

I think it can be dangerous to dismiss groups as being conditioned without specific points that can be observed and analyzed ... it seems like you're willing to dismiss "religious people" in general as being brainwashed. If that's so, are YOU brainwashed? since you admit to having a religious background?

I think a higher percentage of non-religious people are conditioned than religious people, at least here in the USA. I can't tell you how many non-religious people I've found that are ENTIRELY unable to defend their worldview with any data or logical argument whatsoever, but that's another discussion ...

And you noted that despite your Catholic background, "intellectually I disagree with nearly everything in the dogma I grew up with. Yet when asked I still identify myself as catholic, it's still a part of the way I think and behave". That's the point - what I"m talking about here is NOT the way I think and behave automatically. It's what I have analyzed and thought about - like the part of you that intellectually disagrees with your background.

Obviously, you don't have to reject your background to be right. It is clear that EITHER atheists are right OR people that think there is a god/gods are right, REGARDLESS of who has rejected their background or who has not rejected their background.

I think before dismissing "religious" people (or ANY person) you need to look at that individual person and see what they're like, and whether or not they can put forth reasons behind their beliefs (not just "religious" beliefs - ANY beliefs).

I never said anything about dismissing them... I didn't mean to anyway. I meant something near to the opposite, that we shouldn't underestimate the factor of religion in people's choices.
As to brainwashing... well, yeah, to an extent I probably am. Most of my experience with religion took place in elementary school, K-5 specifically. We were taught to think in a way appropriate to the catholic religion before we were really old enough to comphrehend just what it was we were being taught. There's a degree of trust there that was being taken advantage of.
I'll admit to being biased in that respect though. I was extremely unhappy in that environment, and I recently found out that the primary priest of the church affiliated with the school was one of the priests charged with molestation.

I try not to dimiss people based on whether they're religious or not, but I am distrustful of their intentions. Especially concerning sexuality, because the idea that all sexual desire is sinful and non-hetero/marital relations doubly so is so ingrained in just about every major religion.

I think you do have a good point though, about there being more or at least equal numbers of non-religious people who are conditioned to be so, and in their cases it's very likely that the thing that conditioned them to be non-religious was the behavior of those who were religious towards them.

And while thinking rationally and analyzing one's thought's and beliefs can help a great deal when coming to terms with conflicting background and sexuality... conditioning is the most basic form of learning, we're all conditioned in some way long before we learn to analyze and think critically. Many people don't really have a chance to learn except through conditioning. So when considering things like sexuality, which are we most likely to take into account? Beliefs that we've been conditioned to accept or newer thoughts that we have to actively analyze?

I hope some of that made sense. I tried to keep it as a response to your response but I think I started wandering onto a new question near the end there...

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

Exodus International's overall experience that inner hurts or dysfunctional family relationships are a common thread among most homosexuals is an indicator that homosexuality isn't genetic.

Not really, there may be a strong correlation, but that doesn't really mean anything in regards to cause and effect.

They seem to be implying that homosexuality could be a result of dysfunctional family relationships rather than being genetic. But the same correlation could also mean that homes with homosexual children who aren't accepted by their parents/siblings/guardians have dysfunctional relationships.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

Especially concerning sexuality, because the idea that all sexual desire is sinful ...

What?

WHAT?!?!

WHAT in the WORLD are you talking about? Where did you get that idea? Please give references! because that is NOT in any Bible that I know about!!

Here's one for you, just off the top of my head from Proverbs: "Rejoice in the wife of your youth ... let her breasts satisfy you at all times."

Pretty explicit command!


I'm very sorry to hear about your bad experience.

[Lief Erikson]

I don't think that Islam calls sexual pleasure sinful either. The covering of the women is meant to keep the men from lusting. That wouldn't mean that enjoying sex is bad, but it would in theory lessen the cases of sex outside of wedlock.

[Nurvingiel]

Actually, Islam only stipulates that men and women dress modestly. It doesn't have to be a specific type of modest clothing.

Burkas and such were a cultural addition after the creation of Islam (by the Persians, I think).

I wonder if there's any mention of homosexuality in the Qu'ran? (<- so as to attempt to be on topic. )

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What you do with your sexuality should be entirely up to you And same for me! So my point is that for people who WANT to do something different with how they express their sexuality, for WHATEVER reason THEY think is valid, specifically (in this case) change from expressing it in homosexual relationships to expressing it within a man/woman marriage, this group is great for them.

Do we agree with each other or not? I'm confused. I mean, "What you do with your sexuality should be entirely up to you " - I absolutely agree with this.

I see where you're going. I think it's sad some people feel they have to express they're sexuality different than what it actually is, because I'm a strong believer in being true to yourself, as long as this doesn't hurt anyone. But if someone wants to have a different sexuality, then that's how they feel I guess.

I could decide to express my sexuality by dating women, but... why? I would be pretending to be something I'm not, and that's not fair to the women I would date, or to myself. (I make a great hypothetical gay person though. )

Of course, I know some people say that homosexuality does hurt you, but I still think that's dumb, I know we've gone down that road a few times before. We know where it leads. I don't think our opinions will reconcile on that one.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I very often hear from the pro-homosexual side that people should be able to do what they want with their sexuality, and then I see many on that side vehemently protest against people who are doing EXACTLY THAT, but just in a way that the pro-homosexuals don't like

I'm not quite following the logic of this implied large group.

People who are for gay rights don't agree necessarily on how this should be done. There isn't a gay ally hive mind, just as there is not a gay hive mind.

We are the homosexuals! You will be assimilated!

I know you don't think that, I'm just saying.

[Spock]

Being bisexual doubles your chance of a date on Saturday night.
--Woody Allen

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

d'you know the worst thing i hear fom both straights and gays? bisexuals are either ettention seeking or are just plain greedy

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

What?

WHAT?!?!

WHAT in the WORLD are you talking about?

Ack! Sorry about that massive generalization.

I should have said 'all deviations from what are considered 'normal' sexual desires' there.

Not sure what I was thinking of before... There is a logical connection in there someplace, but it's hiding. I'll attempt to dig it out.

[Spock]

Some would say "confused". IMO they just enjoy the best of both worlds.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

even my current, soon to be ex, partner does it, no matter how many times i tell him off for it - IMHO i believe that everyone is bisexual to a certain extent anyway, it is just that the majority of people gravitate towards one sex or the other

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

even my current, soon to be ex, partner does it, no matter how many times i tell him off for it - IMHO i believe that everyone is bisexual to a certain extent anyway, it is just that the majority of people gravitate towards one sex or the other

And I recently read a study that said no man is bisexual, that the professing bisexuals they performed their research on showed signs of arousal (erection) four times greater for one gender than for the other. :/ ? So every man would be either hetero or homosexual, every man gravitating toward one gender over the other. The study wasn't about bisexual women, but only about bisexual men. I don't know if there are any studies like that for women.

I don't know whether I believe the study or not. It might be true. I'm just bringing up the evidence for the opposite view to the one you just presented.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And I recently read a study that said no man is bisexual, that the professing bisexuals they performed their research on showed signs of arousal (erection) four times greater for one gender than for the other. :/ ? So every man would be either hetero or homosexual, every man gravitating toward one gender over the other. The study wasn't about bisexual women, but only about bisexual men. I don't know if there are any studies like that for women.

Yes, I read about the study too. I did not ready the study per se, so I won't comment about methodological flaws. What is ridiculously flawed is to equate engorgement of the penis with sexual orientation.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

People who are for gay rights don't agree necessarily on how this should be done. There isn't a gay ally hive mind, just as there is not a gay hive mind.

That's why I didn't use absolutes; I used qualifiers.

We are the homosexuals! You will be assimilated!

See, that's interesting that you said that ... you, obviously, think that's wrong, and yet I see exactly that from many homosexuals towards people that want to go to groups like Exodus! "You are a homosexual, and you are WRONG to want to change to heterosexual!" And that just sets me off

I don't think our genitals and what we desire to do with them (and with who) define us, to put it crudely. I think our sexuality is only one part of what makes a person, and we are NOT slaves to the desires it sends up in that area, or any other. I think there is something in every person that is ABOVE our urges in ANY area, and can decide what to do with the urges, and THAT part is the important part in us.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Yes, I read about the study too. I did not ready the study per se, so I won't comment about methodological flaws. What is ridiculously flawed is to equate engorgement of the penis with sexual orientation.

Why? That is an indicator of sexual desire among men. At least, it is with me . If someone doesn't experience this much at all with people of one of the genders, it's an indicator that the person just isn't very sexually stimulated by people of that gender.