Gay Conservatives?

[Shogun]

I see your point. It depends on whom you seem to be attracted to. Yet, the debate that Shogun and I were having is it is possible to change your sexual orientation. My position is that it is possible with enough behaviorism and conditioning to actually change your desires.

Hey, if such were the case there would be a THRIVING market for such..

but, there is not. and the ones we DO see are a joke. I keep telling you.. gays are not being hooked up to electrodes when accepting their lifestyle. Being gay is not just a fad.

choosing to be asexual /= choosing an orientation.

Catholic priets and gay republicans are my evidence. It's time to show your cards, dude.

 

[mattskramer]

Hey, if such were the case there would be a THRIVING market for such..

but, there is not. and the ones we DO see are a joke. I keep telling you.. gays are not being hooked up to electrodes when accepting their lifestyle. Being gay is not just a fad.

choosing to be asexual /= choosing an orientation.

Catholic priets and gay republicans are my evidence. It's time to show your cards, dude.

There is not that much of a perceived need to change. There is not that much of a desire to truly change. Not many people are willing to go though the awkward and agonizing years to change. There may have been a genetic component to homosexuality but I still contend that it can be overcome. Priests and Republicans found pedophilia and homosexual behavior to be rewarding and worth the risk.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I see your point. It depends on whom you seem to be attracted to. Yet, the debate that Shogun and I were having is it is possible to change your sexual orientation. My position is that it is possible with enough behaviorism and conditioning to actually change your desires.

The general lexicon for that condition, is bi-sexual.

 

[Shogun]

There is not that much of a perceived need to change. There is not that much of a desire to truly change. Not many people are willing to go though the awkward and agonizing years to change. There may have been a genetic component to homosexuality but I still contend that it can be overcome. Priests and Republicans found pedophilia and homosexual behavior to be rewarding and worth the risk.

uh.. did you just suggest that priests and gay republicans found pedohelia and homosexuality WORTH the risk?

are you sure you want to stick with this tangent?

as if their behaviour was some sort of utilitarian equation or something.

Still, how would a gay person, who became gay without the clockwork orange electrodes NEED the electrodes to be strait it it's JUST a choice? SIMPLEY a behaviour that can be conditioned away? Why the hell does Dick Cheney have a gay daughter if electrodes and serious reinforcement are required to turn someone gay or strait?

Like I keep saying... choosing to be ASEXUAL /= choosing an orientation.

 

[mattskramer]

uh.. did you just suggest that priests and gay republicans found pedohelia and homosexuality WORTH the risk?

Yes, whether someone is genetically predisposed to like something that is wrong or that is frowned upon, that person makes a choices based on those desires. The priest did not have to commit pedophilia. The Republican did not have to engage in homosexual behavior. If they were so concerned about their desires they should have sought therapy or at least changed professions.

As a side note, I do not believe in the notion of “addictions” as being beyond the control of the individual. Addictions are nothing more than desires and choices, which can be both conditioned or changed.

Still, how would a gay person, who became gay without the clockwork orange electrodes NEED the electrodes to be strait it it's JUST a choice? SIMPLEY a behaviour that can be conditioned away? Why the hell does Dick Cheney have a gay daughter if electrodes and serious reinforcement are required to turn someone gay or strait?

I keep saying that I do not know if homosexuality has a genetic component. There might not be a genetic element to being gay. In which case, being homosexual is purely a choice. Such a choice can be altered with a little bit of effort. There might be a genetic element to being gay. In that case, much effort would be required in order to change. There must be a strong desire to change. There must be a decision to change. I do not know why Cheney’s daughter is gay. Perhaps she had more pleasurable experiences with women. Perhaps there she has a genetic component that does not exist in her parents or was not active in her parents.

People do not have to change. Cheney’s daughter does not have to be gay or straight. I still contend that people can choose their sexual behavior and, with enough effort, they can change their orientation.

Like I keep saying... choosing to be ASEXUAL /= choosing an orientation.

I agree and I keep saying that people can choose their sexual behavior and, with enough effort, they can change their orientation.

 

[Nevadamedic]

Being that they were carnivores helped but I contend that if you could stimulate the “pleasure centers” of the dog’s brain when you feed it vegetables, you might turn a dog into an herbivore that actually likes vegetation.



I disagree. If you take a left-handed person when he is relatively young and tie his left hand behind his back – prevent him from ever using it again – and force him to use his right hand very often every day, you can turn him into a true left-handed person after a few decades.



I do not know if sexual orientation is purely a choice or if it has a genetic component. My position is that it matters very little. It might take more effort for one to change if there is a genetic predisposition but it can be done. People might have a “fat gene” but they can diet and exercise to become thin. I hear that there is a genetic link to alcoholism. I think that such people can be conditioned to not only avoid alcohol (behavior) but also despise alcohol (emotion).



I think that there is a genetic queue to aesthetics. I think that infants are drawn to certain things and are repulsed by other things.

 

[Shogun]

"Yes, whether someone is genetically predisposed to like something that is wrong or that is frowned upon, that person makes a choices based on those desires. The priest did not have to commit pedophilia. The Republican did not have to engage in homosexual behavior. If they were so concerned about their desires they should have sought therapy or at least changed professions."


Therapy is a cure all? Changing employment facilitates less homoerotic stimuli? If the DESIRE TO FUCK MEN IS THAT STRONG....



"As a side note, I do not believe in the notion of “addictions” as being beyond the control of the individual. Addictions are nothing more than desires and choices, which can be both conditioned or changed."

hehehe.. yea.. meth, crack, heroin and cocaine addicts are just faking it.. hehehehe...


"I keep saying that I do not know if homosexuality has a genetic component. There might not be a genetic element to being gay. In which case, being homosexual is purely a choice."

I think your logic is still flawed. If someone chooses to be ASEXUAL it is not the same as choosing your sexuality. abstinent priests still claim heterosexuality.


"Such a choice can be altered with a little bit of effort. There might be a genetic element to being gay. In that case, much effort would be required in order to change. There must be a strong desire to change. There must be a decision to change. I do not know why Cheney’s daughter is gay. Perhaps she had more pleasurable experiences with women. Perhaps there she has a genetic component that does not exist in her parents or was not active in her parents.

uh.. like being left handed? Still, again, if it takes bells and whistles to reduce homo behaviour then why didn't it take the same bells and whistles when supposedly CHOOSING to be gay? How much positive homosexual stimuli do you think mary cheney received while growing up? Better yet, how can gay parents produce hetero kids?


"People do not have to change. Cheney’s daughter does not have to be gay or straight. I still contend that people can choose their sexual behavior and, with enough effort, they can change their orientation."

Then show me your evidence. Feel free to have as many erroneous opinions as you want to maintain. Hell, if people still think there is a loch ness monster It doesn't really suprise me that someone would cling onto the opinion that being gay is merely a choice.



I agree and I keep saying that people can choose their sexual behavior and, with enough effort, they can change their orientation.

Again, which is why there are a plethora of successful orientation programs and a thriving market of changing orientation, eh?

 

[mattskramer]

Therapy is a cure all? Changing employment facilitates less homoerotic stimuli? If the DESIRE TO FUCK MEN IS THAT STRONG....

What I meant by changing employment was to seek out a job where such a lifestyle is not so frowned upon. If you are a priest and it is understood that to be a priest, you are not to have sex, but your desire for sex is strong and you do not want to halt the desire, then I’d recommend that you not be a priest. If you are a Republican politician and a homosexual, if you expect to advance in the Republican Party, understand that if you are found to be homosexual, it is unlikely that you will advance as a Republican. Either change political parties or change your desires. Make choices! Yep. People develop strong attractions. If they want to quit, they can quit. They can change not only their “habitual behavior” but their desires too.

hehehe.. yea.. meth, crack, heroin and cocaine addicts are just faking it.. hehehehe...

What do you mean by “faking it”? What are they faking? If they try to quit, they might need medical help. There is something called Delirium tremens which can be quite fatal. Even then, one makes a choice to seek medical help and quit heroine, crack, or whatever. Yet, the bottom line is that people make choices.

uh.. like being left handed? Still, again, if it takes bells and whistles to reduce homo behaviour then why didn't it take the same bells and whistles when supposedly CHOOSING to be gay? How much positive homosexual stimuli do you think mary cheney received while growing up? Better yet, how can gay parents produce hetero kids?

I don't know. Perhaps the daughter wanted to rebel and had some great homosexual experiences. Similarly, perhaps children from gay parents don't inherit the "gay gene" or they have great heterosexual experiences.

I am really getting tired of repeating myself.
I do not know if people are predisposed to being gay. I do not know if there is a “gay gene”. I do not know if some people are born gay.

Now I have a question for you. If there is a gay gene, why has it not become extinct? I understand that gay couples can choose to have children by artificial means. Yet, humans have existed for many years. Each homosexual couple would have had to produce a child in order to perpetuate the gene.

Then show me your evidence. Feel free to have as many erroneous opinions as you want to maintain. Hell, if people still think there is a loch ness monster It doesn't really suprise me that someone would cling onto the opinion that being gay is merely a choice.

I think that there are examples of ex-gays.

http://www.pfox.org/

Can you prove to me that it is scientifically impossible to be ex-gay?

I agree and I keep saying that people can choose their sexual behavior and, with enough effort, they can change their orientation.

Again, which is why there are a plethora of successful orientation programs and a thriving market of changing orientation, eh?

People do not have that much of a commitment to change.

 

[Shogun]

"What I meant by changing employment was to seek out a job where such a lifestyle is not so frowned upon. If you are a priest and it is understood that to be a priest, you are not to have sex, but your desire for sex is strong and you do not want to halt the desire, then I’d recommend that you not be a priest. If you are a Republican politician and a homosexual, if you expect to advance in the Republican Party, understand that if you are found to be homosexual, it is unlikely that you will advance as a Republican. Either change political parties or change your desires. Make choices! Yep. People develop strong attractions. If they want to quit, they can quit. They can change not only their “habitual behavior” but their desires too."

can you prove as much or are we still taking your opinions to mean more than they do? A person's employment is not validation for sexuality. If a priest wants to have sex it's not becuase his job forbids it.. it's because he is a human and a sexual creature like the rest of us. You know.. Genetic... Like I said, I think your entire premise is based off of flawed logic.



"What do you mean by “faking it”? What are they faking? If they try to quit, they might need medical help. There is something called Delirium tremens which can be quite fatal. Even then, one makes a choice to seek medical help and quit heroine, crack, or whatever. Yet, the bottom line is that people make choices. "

yes, people do make choices.. but thats not saying that everyone makes choices about EVERYTHING they do, think or feel. If you don't believe in addiction... fine... I assure you that a coke fiends feels addiction and deciding to stop taking heroin is not merely a choice.

let me say it again just so you keep reading it: asexuality /= choosing orientation.



"I don't know. Perhaps the daughter wanted to rebel and had some great homosexual experiences. Similarly, perhaps children from gay parents don't inherit the "gay gene" or they have great heterosexual experiences."


ahh yes.. just wanted to rebel. Indeed, I'm sure she's got a tramp stamp and a pierced clit too! I think you are trying to hard to cling onto the whole "gay is a choice" tangent.


"I am really getting tired of repeating myself.
I do not know if people are predisposed to being gay. I do not know if there is a “gay gene”. I do not know if some people are born gay."

and, likewise, you don't know that it's a choice either.


"Now I have a question for you. If there is a gay gene, why has it not become extinct? I understand that gay couples can choose to have children by artificial means. Yet, humans have existed for many years. Each homosexual couple would have had to produce a child in order to perpetuate the gene. "

Thats like asking why male paterend baldness or left handedness isn't extinct. Why albinos still occur. Why color blindness happens. We thrive on variation. Not every culture has been as hateful of gays as our western modern reality. You might just find that your mores got you killed by your deviant attitude in ancient rome. I think you'll find out just how broadly applicable is the gay variation when societies stop treating gays like second class citizens.



"I think that there are examples of ex-gays.
http://www.pfox.org/
Can you prove to me that it is scientifically impossible to be ex-gay?"

impossible not to act on sexual stimuli? Hell, of COURSE that's possible. Read any good republican restroom jokes lately? Ted Haggart? Priest of the day? But to TURN hetero? I notice that website doesn't post Recidivism rates... Perhaps you can post a link to their rate of successful therapy? I'm thinking that the JOKE of the success rate among organizations like this is pretty telling. I'd certainly consider it when someone tries to make a blanket statement about homosexuality.

one more time CHOOSING NOT TO FUCK IS NOT THE SAME AS CHANGING ORIENTATION.



"I agree and I keep saying that people can choose their sexual behavior and, with enough effort, they can change their orientation."

Which is why all those gays dudes wrapped up in denail come back to rape boys at bible camp and hire male hookers on the downlow, right? Because acting strait works, eh?

Although examples of "complete" change in orientation were not common, the majority of participants did report change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year as a result of reparative therapy.

Indeed, the hallmark "study" used by NARTH and others who think being gay can be cured via therapy... No WONDER they don't mention Recidivism rates. Ot only are the results totally lacking and subjective to interpretation BUT the testing method is laughable.

here.. enjoy.

The statistical and demographic details of the respondents include the following:

* The study did not seek a random sample of reorientation therapy clients; the subjects chosen were volunteers.

* Average ages: men, 42, women, 44.

* Marital status at time of interview: 76% men were married as were 47% of the female respondents. 21% of the males and 18% of the females were married before beginning therapy.

* 95% were Caucasian and 76% were college graduates.

* 84% resided in the United States, the remaining 16% lived in Europe.

* 97% were of a Christian background, 3% were Jewish, with an overwhelming 93% of all participants stating that religion was either "extremely" or "very" important in their lives.

* 19% of the participants were mental health professionals or directors of ex-gay ministries.

* 41% reported that they had, at some time prior to the therapy, been "openly gay." Over a third of the participants (males 37%, females 35%) reported that at one time, they had had seriously contemplated suicide due to dissatisfaction with their unwanted attractions. 78% had publicly spoken in favor of efforts to change homosexual orientation.

http://www.narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html

He was controversial in 1973 for arguing that homosexuality is not a clinical disorder. The mainstream psychiatric community agreed, and declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that "highly motivated" individuals could "successfully" change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The APA immediately issued an official disavowal of the paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed and bluntly stating that "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."[1]

Two years later, Spitzer published the paper in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.[2] The publication decision sparked controversy and one sponsoring member resigned in protest. The paper has been criticized on various grounds, including using non-random sampling and poor criteria for "success" [3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist)

“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversation therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”


The most important fact about "reparative therapy," also sometimes known as "conversion" therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a "cure."

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html#1

"People do not have that much of a commitment to change."

or are aware of the reality of their homosexuality above social influence and some phantom choice to be gay even...

 

[mattskramer]

"What I meant by changing employment was to seek out a job where such a lifestyle is not so frowned upon. If you are a priest and it is understood that to be a priest, you are not to have sex, but your desire for sex is strong and you do not want to halt the desire, then I’d recommend that you not be a priest. If you are a Republican politician and a homosexual, if you expect to advance in the Republican Party, understand that if you are found to be homosexual, it is unlikely that you will advance as a Republican. Either change political parties or change your desires. Make choices! Yep. People develop strong attractions. If they want to quit, they can quit. They can change not only their “habitual behavior” but their desires too."

can you prove as much or are we still taking your opinions to mean more than they do? A person's employment is not validation for sexuality. If a priest wants to have sex it's not becuase his job forbids it.. it's because he is a human and a sexual creature like the rest of us. You know.. Genetic... Like I said, I think your entire premise is based off of flawed logic.



"What do you mean by “faking it”? What are they faking? If they try to quit, they might need medical help. There is something called Delirium tremens which can be quite fatal. Even then, one makes a choice to seek medical help and quit heroine, crack, or whatever. Yet, the bottom line is that people make choices. "

yes, people do make choices.. but thats not saying that everyone makes choices about EVERYTHING they do, think or feel. If you don't believe in addiction... fine... I assure you that a coke fiends feels addiction and deciding to stop taking heroin is not merely a choice.

let me say it again just so you keep reading it: asexuality /= choosing orientation.



"I don't know. Perhaps the daughter wanted to rebel and had some great homosexual experiences. Similarly, perhaps children from gay parents don't inherit the "gay gene" or they have great heterosexual experiences."


ahh yes.. just wanted to rebel. Indeed, I'm sure she's got a tramp stamp and a pierced clit too! I think you are trying to hard to cling onto the whole "gay is a choice" tangent.


"I am really getting tired of repeating myself.
I do not know if people are predisposed to being gay. I do not know if there is a “gay gene”. I do not know if some people are born gay."

and, likewise, you don't know that it's a choice either.


"Now I have a question for you. If there is a gay gene, why has it not become extinct? I understand that gay couples can choose to have children by artificial means. Yet, humans have existed for many years. Each homosexual couple would have had to produce a child in order to perpetuate the gene. "

Thats like asking why male paterend baldness or left handedness isn't extinct. Why albinos still occur. Why color blindness happens. We thrive on variation. Not every culture has been as hateful of gays as our western modern reality. You might just find that your mores got you killed by your deviant attitude in ancient rome. I think you'll find out just how broadly applicable is the gay variation when societies stop treating gays like second class citizens.



"I think that there are examples of ex-gays.
http://www.pfox.org/
Can you prove to me that it is scientifically impossible to be ex-gay?"

impossible not to act on sexual stimuli? Hell, of COURSE that's possible. Read any good republican restroom jokes lately? Ted Haggart? Priest of the day? But to TURN hetero? I notice that website doesn't post Recidivism rates... Perhaps you can post a link to their rate of successful therapy? I'm thinking that the JOKE of the success rate among organizations like this is pretty telling. I'd certainly consider it when someone tries to make a blanket statement about homosexuality.

one more time CHOOSING NOT TO FUCK IS NOT THE SAME AS CHANGING ORIENTATION.



"I agree and I keep saying that people can choose their sexual behavior and, with enough effort, they can change their orientation."

Which is why all those gays dudes wrapped up in denail come back to rape boys at bible camp and hire male hookers on the downlow, right? Because acting strait works, eh?

Although examples of "complete" change in orientation were not common, the majority of participants did report change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year as a result of reparative therapy.

Indeed, the hallmark "study" used by NARTH and others who think being gay can be cured via therapy... No WONDER they don't mention Recidivism rates. Ot only are the results totally lacking and subjective to interpretation BUT the testing method is laughable.

here.. enjoy.

The statistical and demographic details of the respondents include the following:

* The study did not seek a random sample of reorientation therapy clients; the subjects chosen were volunteers.

* Average ages: men, 42, women, 44.

* Marital status at time of interview: 76% men were married as were 47% of the female respondents. 21% of the males and 18% of the females were married before beginning therapy.

* 95% were Caucasian and 76% were college graduates.

* 84% resided in the United States, the remaining 16% lived in Europe.

* 97% were of a Christian background, 3% were Jewish, with an overwhelming 93% of all participants stating that religion was either "extremely" or "very" important in their lives.

* 19% of the participants were mental health professionals or directors of ex-gay ministries.

* 41% reported that they had, at some time prior to the therapy, been "openly gay." Over a third of the participants (males 37%, females 35%) reported that at one time, they had had seriously contemplated suicide due to dissatisfaction with their unwanted attractions. 78% had publicly spoken in favor of efforts to change homosexual orientation.

http://www.narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html

He was controversial in 1973 for arguing that homosexuality is not a clinical disorder. The mainstream psychiatric community agreed, and declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that "highly motivated" individuals could "successfully" change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The APA immediately issued an official disavowal of the paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed and bluntly stating that "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."[1]

Two years later, Spitzer published the paper in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.[2] The publication decision sparked controversy and one sponsoring member resigned in protest. The paper has been criticized on various grounds, including using non-random sampling and poor criteria for "success" [3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist)

“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversation therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”


The most important fact about "reparative therapy," also sometimes known as "conversion" therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a "cure."

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html#1

"People do not have that much of a commitment to change."

or are aware of the reality of their homosexuality above social influence and some phantom choice to be gay even...

Okay. I give up. You win. I’m tired of this topic. It will still be my contention that just as behaviors can be conditioned and altered, deep-seated desires that influence such behaviors can be conditioned and altered. Modern humans are not some emotion driven reactionary animal pushed helplessly along like a leaf in a stream. They are able to think and change their behaviors. They are even capable of creating within them a desire so as to influence their outward behavior. I think that I will always believe that. Good night.

 

[Toro]

I was attracted to a young man years ago. We came very close to having anal sex. For one reason or another we didn’t follow through. I choose not to experiment with myself, but who knows what the future holds. If I were single and met a guy, and we has sex, and I liked it very very much each time that we met, I might become a homosexual.

Well, good for you. I admire your honesty and forthrightness.

For me, however, it isn't a choice. Its how you are hardwired. I apologize for being crass but its the same as why men are generally attracted to younger, beautiful curvy 110 lb women as opposed to deformed 400 lb women.

 

[mattskramer]

Okay. I give up. You win. I’m tired of this topic. It will still be my contention that just as behaviors can be conditioned and altered, deep-seated desires that influence such behaviors can be conditioned and altered. Modern humans are not some emotion driven reactionary animal pushed helplessly along like a leaf in a stream. They are able to think and change their behaviors. They are even capable of creating within them a desire so as to influence their outward behavior. I think that I will always believe that. Good night.

No. I have two more comments.

Is the recidivism rate 100 percent? No. Therefore at least 1 person changes orientation. You might reply by saying that he was not gay to begin with. Was he faking it? I doubt it. Why would a faker subject himself to ridicule and spend money or go to a support group in attempts to change if he was not really gay to begin with? If there is record of one person changing his orientation then, by definition, change is possible.

”Now I have a question for you. If there is a gay gene, why has it not become extinct? I understand that gay couples can choose to have children by artificial means. Yet, humans have existed for many years. Each homosexual couple would have had to produce a child in order to perpetuate the gene. "[/QUOTE]

Thats like asking why male paterend baldness or left handedness isn't extinct. Why albinos still occur. Why color blindness happens. We thrive on variation.

No. That would only be a logical comparison if that with male pattern baldness were unlikely to have children. That is like asking why left handed people are not extinct if, there is an association with being left-handed and a low likelihood of having children to carry on the “left handed gene”.

Homosexual couples are highly unlikely to produce children to carry on the gay gene. Oh, some couples might get kids artificially, but throughout the decades the gene there would be fewer and fewer people carrying the gay gene until it becomes extinct.

 

[jillian]

There is no one "gay gene". All studies point to (as was said at the beginning of this thread) a complex combination of genetic predisposition and environment (whether that's inter-uterine environment or living environment, no one knows yet).

But no one who is not predisposed to homosexuality or bisexuality is going to, under any set of circumstances become attracted to someone of the same sex to the extent that they would want to have sex with them.

Homosexuality doesn't become extinct because it is, at least in part, a recessive genetic trait.

Moreover, if aversive conditioning could cause someone to switch sides, then why hasn't all the gay hatred and societal constraints against it made homosexuality disappear?

Answer: because it has nothing to do with aversive conditioning, any more than I can become six feet tall because tall stature is considered a positive trait.

As for recidivism rates for pedophiles, pedophiles can't be changed any more than homosexuals can no matter how much therapy you throw at them. Even chemical castration only stops the ability to act on those impulses, not the desire.

 

[Shogun]

Okay. I give up. You win. I’m tired of this topic. It will still be my contention that just as behaviors can be conditioned and altered, deep-seated desires that influence such behaviors can be conditioned and altered. Modern humans are not some emotion driven reactionary animal pushed helplessly along like a leaf in a stream. They are able to think and change their behaviors. They are even capable of creating within them a desire so as to influence their outward behavior. I think that I will always believe that. Good night.

have you been awake since 2001? not "emotionally driven reactionary animals"? How many knee-jerk threads on tis very board tell you otherwise? Sure, we have a cognitive process.... but you don't "think" away your hiccups and cancer. You don't "think" away your emotional responses. People believed in phrenology too. Believe what you want to believe, dude.

I didn't mean to get all evidency on ya...

Good day, sir.

 

[Shogun]

"No. I have two more comments.
Is the recidivism rate 100 percent? No. Therefore at least 1 person changes orientation. You might reply by saying that he was not gay to begin with. Was he faking it? I doubt it. Why would a faker subject himself to ridicule and spend money or go to a support group in attempts to change if he was not really gay to begin with? If there is record of one person changing his orientation then, by definition, change is possible."


if you are telling me that 1% has a damn thing to say about any average behaviour I'm going to laugh. Seriously. 1% might smoke till they are 90 and not get cancer. What in the heck does this tell us about the relationship between tobacco and cnacer? nothing. You might want to consider why I was laughing at his method. And no, if there is a record of one person, who you admit you don't know his entire range of motivations, by definition your limited view of his decision making process is possible. In ten years that same 1% might just be sucking dick in a motel 6. Again, there is a very good reason why they don't post their success.


"”Now I have a question for you. If there is a gay gene, why has it not become extinct? I understand that gay couples can choose to have children by artificial means. Yet, humans have existed for many years. Each homosexual couple would have had to produce a child in order to perpetuate the gene. "
Thats like asking why male paterend baldness or left handedness isn't extinct. Why albinos still occur. Why color blindness happens. We thrive on variation.

No. That would only be a logical comparison if that with male pattern baldness were unlikely to have children. That is like asking why left handed people are not extinct if, there is an association with being left-handed and a low likelihood of having children to carry on the “left handed gene”."


gay people dont have kids? what.. does homosexuality make one sterile? The very flagship study above indicates how many gay people were playing a role and having kids. Again, your logic is fucked up.



"Homosexual couples are highly unlikely to produce children to carry on the gay gene. Oh, some couples might get kids artificially, but throughout the decades the gene there would be fewer and fewer people carrying the gay gene until it becomes extinct."


uh, highly unlikely, eh? indeed, because we sure do know that dominant and recessive traits DON't skip generations in order to promote variance! Hell, considering the superstition involved with left handedness and the social stigma related to male pattern baldness we could make the same assumptions...

 

[mattskramer]

if you are telling me that 1% has a damn thing to say about any average behaviour I'm going to laugh. Seriously. 1% might smoke till they are 90 and not get cancer. What in the heck does this tell us about the relationship between tobacco and cancer? nothing. You might want to consider why I was laughing at his method. And no, if there is a record of one person, who you admit you don't know his entire range of motivations, by definition your limited view of his decision making process is possible. In ten years that same 1% might just be sucking dick in a motel 6. Again, there is a very good reason why they don't post their success.

I don’t get the comparison that you are trying to make between being able to change orientation and smoking. I am saying that if someone was able to change his orientation then it is possible to change orientation. Yet, I see tour point that such a person might return to being homosexual – or not. It would be like an alcoholic relapsing and liking alcohol again. It simply means that he did not stay with the program long enough or did not try hard enough or that the program was not intense and long enough.

Gay people dont have kids? what.. does homosexuality make one sterile? The very flagship study above indicates how many gay people were playing a role and having kids. Again, your logic is fucked up.

I did not say that gay people don’t have kids. It is my contention that they don’t have kids sufficiently enough to keep a would-be gay gene alive after many generations.

uh, highly unlikely, eh? indeed, because we sure do know that dominant and recessive traits DON't skip generations in order to promote variance! Hell, considering the superstition involved with left handedness and the social stigma related to male pattern baldness we could make the same assumptions...

I understand the basic principles of genetics. The recessive gene must be passed on with each generation and unite with another recessive gene in order to have an affected child. I don’t see that as being statistically likely, even though gays sometimes make kids.

 

[mattskramer]

I don’t get the comparison that you are trying to make between being able to change orientation and smoking. I am saying that if someone was able to change his orientation then it is possible to change orientation. Yet, I see tour point that such a person might return to being homosexual – or not. It would be like an alcoholic relapsing and liking alcohol again. It simply means that he did not stay with the program long enough or did not try hard enough or that the program was not intense and long enough.

I did not say that gay people don’t have kids. It is my contention that they don’t have kids sufficiently enough to keep a would-be gay gene alive after many generations.

I understand the basic principles of genetics. The recessive gene must be passed on with each generation and unite with another recessive gene in order to have an affected child. I don’t see that as being statistically likely, even though gays sometimes make kids.

I reconsidered my comments and did some background review. I stand corrected. It is highly possible for a recessive “gay gene” held by heterosexuals to be passed down generation after generation. Homosexuality may very well have a genetic component.

Also, a homosexual may try to become a heterosexual, seemingly succeed for a while, but revert back after some time has passed. Oh well. Call me stubborn but I still believe that just as one change his behavior, one can change his desire or orientation with enough therapy.