Gay-to-straight therapy repudiated

[Larv]

...While homosexuality may be perfectly natural, not all arrive at being homosexual in a manner that they wish to accept as "natural" and may ultimately decide that homosexuality is not natural for them. Denying therapy for these people is a crime.

I very much liked your post, Bill. I take it, then, that you disagree with the APA's repudiation of all forms of gay-to-straight therapy. I do agree with you that raped children might be helped by therapy if they were turning gay by way of perversion and abuse. But what do we say then when such a person decides that he/she is "naturally" homosexual, even if his/her sexual orientation was cause by criminal acts.

[freeztar]

I don't know how effective it is. I would not know how to measure it because quite honestly most of the youths I worked with had a very difficult time with honesty. You never really knew if they were just saying what they thought you wanted to hear or if they were being real. My question is this; if the therapy is 1% effective, is that 1% worthy of the help? How effective does the therapy need to be to justify itself? That becomes part of the debate.

 

You make a good case here. How can we quantify the worthiness of the endeavors in such cases?

 

Well, I think it is ok to at least form some sort of metric. As you pointed out, anything above 0% is worthy of recognition.

 

The other part of the debate is, "what about the children that don't have a choice and are ostracized by the current dogma of society?".

 

How many of these "need to be reformed" kids are ending up in "live-in Ministries" vs. how many kids are just curious and need some counciling to get them back on track (whatever track that may be)?

 

A twelve year old boy is convinced by a friend he adores (non-sexual) to engage him in oral sex. It takes time and peer pressure and the other things that kids do to convince someone to play along, but the kid does it. Then he does it for someone else. Then someone else. He finds he can make friends this way. When he hits puberty he starts to not want to do this anymore, but this is his group of friends, and this is how he is a member of the group. He has become submissive sexually to his friends and finds himself falling into a gay lifestyle. This is his adapted behavior, but is in conflict with innate heterosexuality that he is feeling. Therapy can help him to understand the difference between familiar behavior and desired behavior, and to find coping mechanisms to move from one to the other. And yes, this can go both ways, a person who is heterosexual only because it is familiar behavior should be allowed to seek therapy to help them cope with unwanted heterosexual desires.

 

I completely agree, TBD. Counseling should be available for all teens, but should we have "ex-gay" "Live-in Ministries? Perhaps that's not the proper approach, especially if we use 1%.

 

The fact that there are religious organizations that promote this therapy cannot be allowed to poison the secular reasons that exist for helping people cope with life experiences which may include feeling trapped as a homosexual.

Indeed, and well stated.

 

In your experience, TBD, have you seen reformative events? You've mentioned certain conflicts that a teenager might have, but how were they resolved? Since you have personal experience, and I trust you, what would you estimate the percentage of incoming vs. outgoing success? You said 1% before, but I would guess that it would be higher than that?

[Cedars]

I havent read the whole report. I really think this position paper could have been shortened greatly.

 

I found it at the bottom of the original press release.

 

APA Press Release: Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says APA

 

But its 130+ pages long so I havent read it all yet.

 

BigDog, you bring up some excellent points. I knew people who experimented. I know of adults who still struggle and I know of many who wish (at different points in their life) they were not homosexual. The paper does touch on how to handle those who are seeking to change their orientation because some people are actively seeking help to change their sexual orientation. Grown up adults. It talks of the faults in the methodology of the past reports of success with changing an orientation and how their conclusions may be faulty (reports which indicate success on preference change) but admits participants have changed their behavior.

[TheBigDog]

In your experience, TBD, have you seen reformative events? You've mentioned certain conflicts that a teenager might have, but how were they resolved? Since you have personal experience, and I trust you, what would you estimate the percentage of incoming vs. outgoing success? You said 1% before, but I would guess that it would be higher than that?

I have seen people struggling with a journey and people trying to help them. I have seen progress and setbacks. I do believe that there are success stories, and I was happy to see a couple first hand, but once the kids graduated from the program I never heard how they were doing. The confidentiality was such that we would necessarily avoid recognizing each other outside of therapy. If I saw one at the mall or on the street I might exchange a glance of hello, but we would otherwise leave each other alone. That the kids were in therapy was confidential, and I did not want to put them in a position of having to lie to people about where we knew one another from, even if it was a small lie.

 

I had some long talks with the therapists who ran the program and they knew much more than I did about the cases. I didn't know any details about any kids case other than what they shared or was shared by a parent. The therapists were happy with the effectiveness of the program and would probably have estimated a decent success rate. I would not know what number to put on it, but if I saw 40 kids pass through the program in 3 years, there were a dozen who graduated, another group who ended up in jail for some offense of another, and another group who either stayed forever making no progress or managed to get out through legal means (it was court ordered for all these kids).

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

Bill, it is my impression that you are not accurately describing the intent of the therapy.

You make it out be some form of kind help provided to those poor folks who are not happy with who they are and who wish to change... based on their own preferences and decisions.

 

That's not what the OP was discussing. There are regular therapists to help them with that.

 

What has been repudiated is the idea that you can convert a homosexual into a heterosexual against their will using such therapy... So, while I appreciate the personal and heart-felt nature of your post, I think it misses the point rather profoundly.

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

 

Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options - that could range from celibacy to switching churches - for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

 

In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

 

... ...

 

"There's no evidence to say that change therapies work, but these vulnerable people are tempted to try them, and when they don't work, they feel doubly terrified," Glassgold said. "You should be honest with people and say, 'This is not likely to change your sexual orientation, but we can help explore what options you have.'"

The article is not about people changing against their will, it is about those seeking to change. It talks specifically about the faith based therapies, but opens with the broad statement that clients should be told that no therapy will work, period. If a person comes to any APA therapist seeking help on this matter the therapist should tell them, according to this article, that no therapy can help them.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

I tried googling "straight-to-gay" therapy, but the Internet has nothing on it.

Don’t know what google you were using, Larv, ‘cause I got “Results 1 - 10 of about 27,200 for "straight-to-gay". (0.25 seconds)” from it.

 

Point taken, however, that there aren’t, to the best of my knowledge, any actual clinics advertising such a therapy. I suspect this is because

• Few churches (the major promoters of “gay-to-strait” therapy, according to the OP’s linked and other articles) consider heterosexuality a state of sin that can be remedies by becoming homosexual
  
• Most of the people who consider homosexuality to be an acceptable sexual orientation also believe it’s not wise to attempt to change ones sexual orientation through therapy
  

On a waggish impulse, I was tempted to reply something like “You were using the wrong search terms, Larv – try looking for ‘non-coeducational prep-school’, ‘enough liquor’, The TV series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, ‘Metrosexual’, or a scene from the movie Team America: World Police”, but this is arguably a subject that one shouldn’t be overly jokey about. Attempts by one or a group of people to change an emotionally-charged identity characteristic of a person, such as sexual orientation , tend to quickly become un-funny, and ultimately hurtful to the point of provoking anger and even violence.

 

I’ve been in some social situation where some homosexuals tried reversing some of the tactics they’d been on the receiving end of from some heterosexuals, the major one trying to make the recipient feel bad about his or her sexual orientation. The most common inverted version of the various derisive terms used on homosexuals, as best I can tell, is “breeder” – it’s amazing how infuriating a few hours of being repeatedly repeated called that can be.

 

Personally, I think many straits and gays err in perceiving sexual orientation in such binary, black-or-white terms, an error reinforced by much of the presentation of studies and recommendations such as those from the APA that inspired this thread. I believe researchers such as Kinsey were correct in their theory that sexual preference is a continuum, with exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality, at the extremes, while most people fall in between, skewed strongly toward the hetero. When in a state of lowered inhibitions – either by personality or the use of inhibition-reducing drugs (such as the above mentioned alcohol) – many people of both strait and gay primary orientation appear able to have enjoyable sexual experiences with people of either gender.

[InfiniteNow]

The article is not about people changing against their will, it is about those seeking to change. It talks specifically about the faith based therapies, but opens with the broad statement that clients should be told that no therapy will work, period. If a person comes to any APA therapist seeking help on this matter the therapist should tell them, according to this article, that no therapy can help them.

 

A fair point, Bill, and I completely appreciate your correction. I was mistaken to suggest that these folks don't want to change (itself a potentially interesting avenue for discussion, since I question whether or not they'd really "want" to change if society actually was able to accept them for who they are). However, your final few words could not be farther from the truth, and is a total misrepresentation of what the therapists are saying.

 

The therapists are telling them that therapy is not likely to change their sexual orientation. That's not only okay, but it's true. What these therapists WILL likely do is to help these individuals find ways to accept who they are as human beings... find ways to ensure they can still live productive and happy lives, even though they feel like their sexual urges cause them to be ostracized from society... and even though they've been taught for their entire lives that what they are feeling (and sometimes doing) is "wrong."

 

Nobody is saying that "no therapy can help." They are saying that therapy is not likely to change sexual preferences. Therapy CAN, however, find ways to overcome the stigma... to overcome the shame... and to find ways to realize that what they feel is both okay and normal.

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________

 

Let’s face it: gays are gay because nature made them that way, and straights are straight because nature made them that way. Nature made dogs to be dogs and cats to be cats.

I think you raise a valid point, Larv.

 

It's nonsensical to ask every cat to be a dog (or vice versa). Yet, they should be accorded the same privileges that every other pet has.

I agree that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated the same under the law, and afforded all of the same benefits and privileges, but I find the analogy of cats and dogs really incredibly poor, myopic, and in bad taste.

 

Cats and dogs are different species. Homosexual and heterosexual humans are not, yet that's what such comments implicitly suggest. This is why I often react so strongly. Many of you don't see the harm in making such comments unchecked. You think it's a perfectly normal thing to say, and see it as relatively innocuous.

 

Well... you know what? It's not okay to say things like that, all it does is perpetuate the us/them mentality which has kept us mired in this issue for so long already, and I'm simply calling you all out on that fact.

 

In humans, one mother can have more than one child, and some of those children can be gay and some can be straight. Have you ever seen a dog give birth to a cat, or a cat give birth to a dog? Yeah... I didn't think so.

 

 

Isn’t that really what the APA decided when it repudiated gay-to-straight therapy?

It sure seems to me that it had much more to do with the fact that such conversions through therapy simply don't work. It's as if they were trying to use therapy to change a black person into a white person. At some point, if such silly approaches continue, someone needs to step up and say, "This is stupid, and a waste of time."

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________

 

Personally, I think many straits and gays err in perceiving sexual orientation in such binary, black-or-white terms, an error reinforced by much of the presentation of studies and recommendations such as those from the APA that inspired this thread. I believe researchers such as Kinsey were correct in their theory that sexual preference is a continuum, with exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality, at the extremes, while most people fall in between, skewed strongly toward the hetero.

Quite right.

 

While some contributors to this thread are likely to dismiss this work as merely politics being used in some "rush to make homosexuality universally accepted," or as some conspiratorial attempt to deny youths the ability "to bring clarity to their sexual identities," it is quite simply the most accurate and reality-based method of discussing these scenarios.

 

 

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/sexual-orientation-gender-4329.htm

Each of us has a biological sex — whether we are female, male, or intersex. Our gender is our biological, social, and legal status as men or women. And sexual orientation is the term used to describe whether a person feels sexual desire for people of the other gender, same gender, or both genders.

 

Each of us has a gender and gender identity. Our gender identity is our deepest feelings about our gender. We express our gender identity in the way that we act masculine, feminine, neither, or both. Some of us are transgender — which means that our biological sex and our gender identity do not match up.

 

Each of us also has a sexual orientation. You may be bisexual, gay, lesbian or straight. Or you may be “questioning” — unsure about your sexual orientation.

 

The more you understand biological sex, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation, the more you may understand yourself and how you relate to other people. Because sex and gender are so complex, you may have many questions. You may wonder about your own sexual orientation or gender identity, or you may wonder about someone you know. You may have questions about how society views sex and gender — including homophobia, sexism, and transphobia.

 

 

 

 

 

There is also mention of the Kinsey Scale. While it is sometimes regarded as a bit too simplistic, it was honestly WAY ahead of its time (in terms of accurately describing human sexuality). It was published way back in 1948... that's more than 60 years ago... and yet (despite its slight oversimplifications) still offers tremendous insights to folks who are unfamiliar with anything beyond their own narrow worldview composed of nothing more than heterosexuality.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

Introducing the scale, Kinsey wrote:

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.

 

While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist." (Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)

 

 

 

[InfiniteNow]

My suggestion is that most of the "confusion" people feel about their sexuality comes from trying to align their inner feelings and desires with the rigid expectations being placed on them by society. Were it not for the pain and suffering they experience as a result of being shunned by their families, their classmates, and their colleagues, I strongly suspect that few (if any) would ever bother to seek therapy in an attempt to change themselves into something they are not.

 

Perhaps changing this starts with something as simple as not suggesting that homosexuals and heterosexuals are as different as cats and dogs.

[Larv]

Don’t know what google you were using, Larv, ‘cause I got “Results 1 - 10 of about 27,200 for "straight-to-gay". (0.25 seconds)” from it.

My gosh, you’re right! But when I add the word “therapy” to “straight-to-gay” I don’t get anything. I’ll have to look over this straight-to-gay stuff. Wow!

 

I agree that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated the same under the law, and afforded all of the same benefits and privileges, but I find the analogy of cats and dogs really incredibly poor, myopic, and in bad taste.

 

Cats and dogs are different species. Homosexual and heterosexual humans are not, yet that's what such comments implicitly suggest. This is why I often react so strongly. Many of you don't see the harm in making such comments unchecked. You think it's a perfectly normal thing to say, and see it as relatively innocuous.

 

Well... you know what? It's not okay to say things like that, all it does is perpetuate the us/them mentality which has kept us mired in this issue for so long already, and I'm simply calling you all out on that fact.

To say that homosexuals are humans just like heterosexuals is to say that Europeans are Earthlings just like Americans. It’s meaningless, silly and ignores the fundamental difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. You, along with others, have argued extensively that homosexuality is as fundamentally natural as heterosexuality, and in doing so you have acknowledged the fundamental difference between them. There would be no issue here at all if there were not a fundamental difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. If there were no fundamental difference then you could go out to the bars on Tuesday night and flirt with men and then go on Thursday night and flirt with women. Fundamentally, I can’t do that, can you?

 

The real challenge is to accept these fundamental differences. I’m arguing that an emphasis on how nature sets up these differences is what’s needed; we need to learn why gay people are gay, and we need to do it scientifically. The APA says quit trying to change them because they are fundamentally different by way of natural —"separate but equal," according to the laws of nature—that's what the APA is saying.

 

The point of this thread is to recognize the fundamental differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality and not try to obliterate them. The APA has effectively made this point by repudiating gay-to-straight therapy.

 

Let me perform an imaginary experiment, one that couldn’t and shouldn’t be done experimentally in the real world. Let’s say the entire human population on Earth got bottlenecks somehow—maybe all the homosexuals were sent off like lepers to an island exile somewhere—and that bottlenecking eliminated every homosexual on the planet. Now, the remaining heterosexual population continues on without any extant trace of homosexuality. So, the question is this: Would homosexuality reappear in the human population? Or would it have gone extinct?

 

I think the experimental results would show that homosexuality could not be suppressed this way; it would "grow back" into the human population. Wouldn't this imply then that Mother Nature is just as friendly to homosexuals as she is to cats and dogs?

[InfiniteNow]

To say that homosexuals are humans just like heterosexuals is to say that Europeans are Earthlings just like Americans. It’s meaningless, silly and ignores the fundamental difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. You, along with others, have argued extensively that homosexuality is as fundamentally natural as heterosexuality, and in doing so you have acknowledged the fundamental difference between them. There would be no issue here at all if there were not a fundamental difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Can you please elaborate on this "fundamental" difference? Are we not genetically compatible? Do homosexuals have three arms and seven testes? Do they glow in the dark and talk to dolphins? Do they inhale CO₂ and exhale oxygen? What is this "fundamental" difference to which you keep referring?

 

I sincerely request that you elaborate. You seem driven to continue expressing human sexuality as if it exists in some binary state, despite the fact that the mention of Kinsey in the post above illuminates how clearly human sexuality is NOT some binary issue, and is best described as a spectrum... and how we've known this now already for over 60 years.

 

Either way, what "fundamental difference" are you suggesting exists between homosexuals and heterosexuals? When I read your words, it strikes me as no different than you saying there is a "fundamental difference" between guys who like blonds and guys who like brunettes, or that there is a "fundamental difference" between people who prefer spinach to broccoli. It's nonsensical. It's a different preference, not a fundamental difference.

 

 

 

If there were no fundamental difference then you could go out to the bars on Tuesday night and flirt with men and then go on Thursday night and flirt with women. Fundamentally, I can’t do that, can you?

WTF? Of course, I can. And so can you. What are you talking about?

 

 

 

The point of this thread is to recognize the fundamental differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality and not try to obliterate them. The APA has effectively made this point by repudiating gay-to-straight therapy.

No, sir. As I already explained above to TheBigDog, the APA has simply stated that using therapy to change someones sexual preference is not a successful approach. It has nothing to do with "fundamental differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals."

[Larv]

Larv, there are no such gay-to-straight "therapies", the only thing one would learn there is to be an actor for the rest of the life, cheating yourself...

I can understand this and other points in your post, and I agree with most of them. But TheBigDog has made a good point in post #14 that sometimes homosexuality can arise from abuse, thus requiring therapy to regain normal alignment.

[InfiniteNow]

I can understand this and other points in your post, and I agree with most of them. But TheBigDog has made a good point in post #14 that sometimes homosexuality can arise from abuse, thus requiring therapy to regain normal alignment.

So, anything which is not "heterosexual" is by your terms abnormal. Nope. No problems there. :hyper:

[Larv]

So, anything which is not "heterosexual" is by your terms abnormal. Nope. No problems there. :)

Heterosexuality is the norm in any population. Show me a population wherein homosexuality is the norm and I'll show you an extinct population.

 

Added by edit: I‘ve rethought this post. To be more precise, I don’t think homosexuality is abnomal in the sense that it is bad, like an abnormal spine development, for example. But, normally, heterosexuality the rule of nature. As such, I see a homosexual in the same context as, say, an albino, a dwarf, or a musical savant.

[HydrogenBond]

At the most fundamental natural level, sex is designed for reproduction. Beyond this, base function, additional expressions along the sex theme, are added via the brain.

 

As an analogy example, the human body has the biological functionality to eat both meat and veggies. We are omnivores. Both are natural for the body, since the body has genetic capability to eat both. But in the mind, one can feel sorry for animals or be grossed out and eat only veggies. This choice, although still resulting in good health, does not equate to the fundamental genetic capacities of the body, but is slanted one way because of the mind.

 

Gays can reproduce, which is part of their body's capability. But in the mind, this is restricted, not because the body can't do it, but because the mind does not move the body in this direction. If the gays were all sterile, then the mental choice would fully coordinate with this fundamental biology, and not be centered as much in the mind.

 

Another analogy is having two arms but favoring only one. The genetic capacity says you have two arms. In the natural world, this would be the result. But if my belief system says, only the right arm is good. This will build up one side and weaken the other, until it looks like I genetically have one strong arm and one weak arm. If I stayed on the natural center, and not the mind based subjective peripheral, both arms develop. But with a peripheral mind center, I can subjectively create what appears to be an objective genetic result. It comes back to body capability and making use of or restricting it to get another type of result centered in the brain.

[InfiniteNow]

But TheBigDog has made a good point in post #14 that sometimes homosexuality can arise from abuse, thus requiring therapy to regain normal alignment.

So, anything which is not "heterosexual" is by your terms abnormal.

Heterosexuality is the norm in any population. Show me a population wherein homosexuality is the norm and I'll show you an extinct population.

Okay... A few points, Larv. I'm going to approach this in numerous ways in hopes of finally getting my points across.

 

First, I primarily took issue with your word choice. The word "normal," while available with multiple meanings and used in numerous contexts, ... in most of those contexts... is laden with a tremendous amount of cultural and emotional baggage. It is another method of creating divisions between people, and furthers the us/them mentality. It is a classic weapon used to reinforce ingroup/outgroup associations, and this is readily evidenced simply by looking at youngsters going through puberty who are profoundly concerned with whether or not they are "normal."

 

As I'm sure you know, most teenagers facing shifts in their hormones during their pubescent years begin to experience growing concerns about their social positions, their acceptance among fellow members of their group, and are TREMENDOUSLY concerned with whether or not they are "normal." They obsess about it, and often cause themselves great anxiety and neuroses when they think they are not considered "normal." Normal has many usages, but in most of them, if an individual is considered "not normal," they are deeply hurt, painfully alone, as well as shunned and separated from the group with which they hope to be associated.

 

With that word choice in your post, you IMMEDIATELY suggest (both implicitly and explicitly) that ANYTHING different than heterosexuality is ABnormal. It is not only hurtful to many people who are not heterosexual, but it is wrong on a very simple human level. This issue about sexual preference is not about normal and abnormal, and it's not about fundamental differences. It's just about a different preference.

 

 

However, maybe I am just being pedantic, and I will move on by accepting that you likely intended the word normal in a non-suggestive way... that you used it merely to suggest something more akin to "the mean" sexual preference, or the sexual preference which falls more toward "the center of the bell curve." That's fine.

 

 

Regardless, even with that said, your suggestion that this discussion is somehow one about the frequency of sexual preferences found in our society completely misses the point, and this brings me to my next argument.

 

Second, you have assumed to be valid TheBigDogs suggestion earlier in the thread that homosexual behavior results from abuse during childhood. You should note, however, that TBD has provided ZERO evidence in support of that assertion, has based it on nothing more than a tiny handful of his own anecdotal experiences, and yet you are here now drawing conclusions and making new assertions with that as your foundation.

 

Until TBD, or you, or some other contributor to this thread offers up some evidence that being the victim of sexual abuse at a young age results in a preference for same sex partners later in life, then you are building castles in the sand, working from a highly suspect set of premises, and hence so too are your conclusions highly suspect and worthy of dismissal.

 

 

Third, you have now displaced the context of the exchange between you and I, instead suggesting that a purely homosexual society cannot continue to exist. That is so irrelevant to what we are discussing here that it makes my pancreas hurt. It is a deflection, and a total red herring which is irrelevant to a persons sexual preference, how common that preference is in society (whether or not it falls more toward the center of the bell curve or if it's an outlier a few standard deviations out), whether children become homosexual as a result of abuse early in life, and also irrelevant to the (in)effectiveness of therapy in changing ones sexual preference.

 

 

Fourth, you and TBD continue to suggest with your words that there is something wrong with the sexual preferences of these abused children which manifest later in life, and that they now require being "fixed" because of how they are expressing themselves in a non-heterosexual manner after being abused in the past. It leaves me a bit speechless... I mean, seriously... Who are you to say that their sexuality is not EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD BE? Who are you to say that their exploration of same sex activity is not the best thing for their personal situation and personal circumstances? Where do you find the audacity to be so unquestioningly certain that homosexuality is wrong for these kids, instead of asking whether their preference later in life is exactly as it should be? Truly, the mind just boggles.

 

 

 

And... finally... my fifth point. Perhaps this one is the most important. Even if you or TBD supply some empirical evidence in support of your assertion that sexual abuse at a young age causes a preference for same sex partners later in life, you both still have failed to establish a legitimate baseline of which gender those children would have sexually preferred later in life in the absence of an abusive past. Without that baseline, you cannot legitimately argue what change in sexual preference has resulted from abuse during childhood, and you speciously assume that each of those children would have turned out with heterosexual preferences were it not for the abuse.

 

You and TBD have assumed that these children would have been heterosexual were it not for the sexual abuse. With zero evidence, zero logic, and zero concern for reality you have both declared by fiat that each of these children would have ended up heterosexual were it not for their abusive past, and that it was the abusive past which led to their current sexual preference toward members of the same sex.

 

This is truly a pathetic and baseless position... an argument residing on nothing more than faulty premises and questionable assumptions. To make the argument you are, you would first need to establish a baseline founded on empirical data. You would need to measure each and every one of those kids BEFORE the abuse took place. You would need to have an incredibly accurate projection of their future sexual preferences, and whether they would (in their future) tend more toward heterosexual or more toward homosexual partners.

 

Then... and ONLY then... once you'd collected and aggregated all of that data could you run a study to see what percentage of these kids... as a result of their abusive past... later became homosexual, when they otherwise would have been heterosexual. You would, of course, also have to control for all other confounding variables, and you would have to be enormously confident about your projections of which gender they would have preferred in the absence of abuse... and you would have to do all of that in order to EVEN BEGIN attributing their current sexual preferences to their abusive past.

 

 

So yeah... you can talk all you want about median preference on some bell curve, and all you want about some fantasy concept about how society would disappear if there were too many homosexuals, but NONE of that is relevant, and NONE of it supports your point which I've just flatly debunked. All such comments demonstrate is your desire to deflect away from the heart of an issue with red herrings and prolific use logical fallacies.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, to quote myself from earlier in the thread:

My suggestion is that most of the "confusion" people feel about their sexuality comes from trying to align their inner feelings and desires with the rigid expectations being placed on them by society. Were it not for the pain and suffering they experience as a result of being shunned by their families, their classmates, and their colleagues, I strongly suspect that few (if any) would ever bother to seek therapy in an attempt to change themselves into something they are not.

 

Perhaps changing this starts with something as simple as not suggesting that homosexuals and heterosexuals are as different as cats and dogs.

 

... Or, perhaps simply being more cognizant of when we thoughtlessly cast sexual preferences beyond the heterosexual aside so lightly as "not normal." :)

[Larv]

With that word choice in your post, you IMMEDIATELY suggest (both implicitly and explicitly) that ANYTHING different than heterosexuality is ABnormal. It is not only hurtful to many people who are not heterosexual, but it is wrong on a very simple human level. This issue about sexual preference is not about normal and abnormal, and it's not about fundamental differences. It's just about a different preference.

OK, it’s all about sexual preference then. So, I take it that you regard pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality as normal, too, since they are just difference forms of sexual preference.

 

Yes, it is all about words, isn’t it? Here again, your own words are attacking your own argument.

[InfiniteNow]

If you can establish that homosexuality between two consenting partners which causes no harm to them or to others is equivalent to pedophilia which has serious issues of consent and absolutely causes measurable harm to others, then I will concede the point.

 

If you can establish that homosexuality between two consenting partners which causes no harm to them or to others is equivalent to bestiality which has serious issues of consent, then I will concede the point.

 

Necrophilia doesn't cause anyone harm, so yeah... I don't really care about that one, and it IS just a different sexual preference.

 

 

EDIT: I notice that you failed to respond to the actual meat of my post, instead choosing to equivocate homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. That, in itself, is rather telling.