Gay by Choice? The Science of Sexual Identity
If science proves sexual orientation is more fluid than we've been led to believe, can homosexuality still be a protected right?
In 1838, a 20-year-old Hungarian killed himself and left a suicide note for Karl Benkert, a 14-year-old bookseller's apprentice in Budapest whom he had befriended. In it he explained that he had been cleaned out by a blackmailer who was now threatening to expose his homosexuality, and that he couldn't face either the shame or the potential legal trouble that would follow. Benkert, who eventually became a writer, moved to Vienna, and changed his name to Karoly Maria Kertbeny, later said that the tragedy left him with "an instinctive drive to take issue with every injustice." And in 1869, a particularly resonant injustice occurred: A penal code proposed for Prussia included an anti-sodomy law much like the one that had given his friend's extortionist his leverage. Kertbeny published a pamphlet in protest, writing that the state's attempt to control consensual sex between men was a violation of the fundamental rights of man. Nature, he argued, had divided the human race into four sexual types: "monosexuals," who masturbated, "heterogenits," who had sex with animals, "heterosexuals," who coupled with the opposite sex, and "homosexuals," who preferred people of the same sex. Kertbeny couldn't have known that of all his literary output, these latter two words would be his only lasting legacy. But while homosexual conduct had occurred throughout history, the idea that it reflected fundamental differences between people, that gay people were a sexual subspecies, was a new one.
Kertbeny wasn't alone in creating a sexual taxonomy. Another anti-sodomy-law opponent, lawyer Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, proposed that homosexual men, or "Uranians," as he called them (and he openly considered himself a Uranian, while Kertbeny was coy about his preferences), were actually a third sex, their attraction to other men a manifestation of the female soul residing in their male bodies. Whatever the theoretical differences between Ulrichs and Kertbeny, they agreed on one crucial point: that sexual behavior was the expression of an identity into which we were born, a natural variation of the human. In keeping with the post-Enlightenment notion that we are morally culpable only for what we are free to choose, homosexuals were not to be condemned or restricted by the state. Indeed, this was Kertbeny and Ulrichs' purpose: Sexual orientation, as we have come to call this biological essence, was invented in order to secure freedom for gay people.
But replacing morality with biology, and the scrutiny of church and state with the observations of science, invited a different kind of condemnation. By the end of the 19th century, homosexuality was increasingly the province of psychiatrists like Magnus Hirschfeld, a gay Jewish Berliner. Hirschfeld was an outspoken opponent of anti-sodomy laws and championed tolerance of gay people, but he also believed that homosexuality was a pathological state, a congenital deformity of the brain that may have been the result of a parental "degeneracy" that nature intended to eliminate by making the defective population unlikely to reproduce. Even Sigmund Freud, who thought people were "polymorphously perverse" by nature and urged tolerance for homosexuality, believed heterosexuality was essential to maturity and psychological health.
Freud was pessimistic that homosexuality could be treated, but doctors abhor an illness without a cure, and the 20th century saw therapists inflict the best of modern psychiatric practice on gay people, which included, in addition to interminable psychoanalysis and unproven medications, treatments that used electric shock to associate pain with same-sex attraction. These therapies were largely unsuccessful, and, particularly after the Stonewall riots of 1969—the clash between police and gays that initiated the modern gay rights movement—patients and psychiatrists alike started questioning whether homosexuality should be considered a mental illness at all. Gay activists, some of them psychiatrists, disrupted the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association for three years in a row, until in 1973 a deal was brokered. The apa would delete homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (dsm) immediately, and furthermore it would add a new disease: sexual orientation disorder, in which a patient can't accept his or her sexual identity. The culprit in sod was an oppressive society, and the cure for sod was to help the gay patient overcome oppression and accept who he or she really was. (sod has since been removed from the dsm.)
The apa cited various scientific papers in making its decision, but many members were convinced that the move was a dangerous corruption of science by politics. "If groups of people march and raise enough hell, they can change anything in time," one psychiatrist worried. "Will schizophrenia be next?" And their impression was confirmed when the final decision was made not in a laboratory but at the ballot box, where the membership voted by a six-point margin to authorize the apa to delete the diagnosis of homosexuality. It may be the first time in history that a disease was eliminated by the stroke of a pen. It was certainly the first time that psychiatrists determined that the cause of a mental illness was an intolerant society. And it was a crucial moment for gay people, at once getting the psychiatrists out of their bedrooms and giving the weight of science to Kertbeny and Ulrichs' claim that homosexuality was an identity, like race or national origin, that deserved protection.
three decades later, at least one group is still raising hell about the deletion: the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (narth), an organization founded by Charles Socarides, a psychiatrist who led the opposition to the 1973 apa vote. "They will wipe the floor with us," Socarides (who died in 2005) once said, "but we will wear our wounds as badges of courage," and at narth's November 2006 national meeting in Orlando, Socarides' firebrand rhetoric is still in the air. You hear it when Joe and Marian Allen take to the lectern to tell us how God has called them to "give testimony" about their gay son who was murdered by his lover, a tragedy that they manage to twist into a cautionary tale about what happens when a "struggler" is told by a "well-meaning therapist" that he was "born gay" and can't change it. Or when a minion of James Dobson's Focus on the Family cheerfully explains the Gay Agenda to me: "It's doing whatever you want, whenever you want, with whoever you want, wherever you want."
I have been dealing with this issue lately myself.
I think that part of this is part of the women's lib movement, trying to divide us into matriarchy and patriarchy and pitting us against one another, rather then allowing us to enjoy or like sex however and with whoever we want or choose to do so.
I think that the feminist some how got into making women feel like they had to build their own master group of controllers with just females and exclude the males even from healthy and happy adult sex, LOL
Maybe it was the dykes that were so persuasive in having the females turn away and start promoting homosexuality? I am not sure?
Whoever it was they were clever, they were getting what they really wanted at the expense of most others, LOL.
Now I am not saying that if you want that kind of sex you shouldn't have it that is up to you. Just as I won't say that kids are not going to experiment or that it is wrong for them to experiment, that is actually healthy for them. Taking advantage of another's weaknesses and or fears for our own personal gains whatever they are can be wrong no matter who is doing it. It is most fundamentally an imbalance of powers of some kind.
What I am saying is that I am tired of dykes pushing their form of sex on me and saying that I am not a proper feminist if I like any kind of male female relations or am tired of abusing all the men in the world for any kind of sexual stuff that we can. I am more or less publicly admitting the errors of my ways because I was led by this group of women, just as a cult member will once they come out of the cult.
If I don't want to have sex with another woman I shouldn't have to, to say that or infer that I am not a feminist, that bothers me, just as it would if a grown adult was sexually manipulating a child in this way.
Rape is rape, and sexual manipulation or exploitation is just that no matter what or how it is being done. Now if I want to experiment and it happens that I can and I do that is my business and that is different, but if I don't want to I should not be weaned into it or feared into it or shut out so that the only way that I can get my own needs met is to do it even if I don't want to and that is what is wrong in child abuse so much of the time.
That is why the laws needed to be made I think, but then it turned into being about who was getting the kudus, who was selling the books and conferences and materials for them, what programs were getting dollars, and who was getting paid.
So it was corrupted, and anytime that something is corrupted like this it isn't really going to assist the one that it is supposedly meant to assist, it is going to assist the ones that are benefitting from it. So those of us that are not actually benefitting from it and may have actually even been hurt because of it, our voices are not really being heard we are being shadowed and spoken for, rather then being allowed to really speak and be heard. What we want or really need or need to have happen isn't really the important thing at that point. Does that make sense to you?
I appreciated reading this article and finding out that they had definitions for those that were into masturbation and into messing around rather then being tied down or married.
Let me ask though, why does this have to get to God God stuff or science, since none of what psychiatry or religion does has any scientific basis to it in the first place, since they have no valid and reliable scientific evidence why do we let them decide all of this stuff?
First they tell us to learn to talk to our plants and animals and then when we do learn that and start talking to those instead of other humans they want to tell us we are crazy for it, LOL
I believe that psychiatry causes so many of the so called symptoms that they label as some sort of a sickness, but most of this is more a social sickness for listening to and never actually analyzing the propaganda then what it is any individual sickness.
When will we get to the point where we stop trying to fix something that isn't broken, and work on fixing the parts that are? One out of three girls and one out of six boys are sexually abused before the age of twelve. Rape and pedophilia are symptoms of sexuality gone completely wrong. Why can't we focus on fixing the real sexual issues we face in our society and leave the consenting adults alone. I believe if the person is a tax paying adult they should be allowed to live with, marry, divorce and otherwise make miserable any other adult they choose, gender aside.
I always call it as I see it, and I always suspected that the guys who say being gay is a choice are a little gay; otherwise it would not be a choice. These are the same self hating folks that like to beat other folks up because they are trying to prove to others that they are not gay, and cause they hate themselves. Religion and society are making them hate themselves. Feel sorry for them, but fear them. If these facts were brought out into the mainstream, hate crimes against homosexuals would stop, because the hate itself would expose them as being just a little gay. The GOP is full of folks that put bills up for a vote to legislate their choice. These folk’s worst nightmares are always coming true as they are exposed. Any Politian trying to ban same sex marriage is afraid they might try it. It is sad that homosexual self denial/repression is what hurts the gay community.
I’m not gay and I don’t give two [deleted] if you are, “even a little bit”.
Paul Lake
Why don’t republicans use book marks……..cause they just bend their pages over.
I have been heavily involved with the gay/lesbian/bisexual and transgendered community for 25 + years. Our family members are everywhere....yes, even in YOUR family. I would suggest that if we all practiced the Golden Rule "Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you" the entire human race would be better off and our planet would be a place of respect and peace. As for me, i love my G/L/B/T family and friends.
I want homosexuals to know that Jesus does not hate you, and His true disciples do not hate you. It is from love tat we speak. If a Christian is to condemn you for homosexuality, than they probably have to condemn themselves for adultery or fornication. That is the whole "judge not lest ye be judged" doctrine. This was not a suggestion, Jesus was very plain in saying that a judgemental person would have their whole life judged and be in danger of the lake of fire.
I do not apologize for my belief that same-sex intercourse is a sin. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, and do believe that it is my obligation to show Christ and prayerfully bring souls to Him. Jesus died for ALL sinners, and loves all.
For those who think that is preposterous, or just lacks physical evidence, your stance does not bother me. You believing what I say does not change how true it is. And it is only by the Spirit that you can truly come to Him.
But still I love you. And if you continue to be homosexual, I will pray for you and for you to have a repentant spirit, and all the while I will be working on my own sinful nature and working out my own soul's salvation.
I am vexed by the question of legality when it comes to this issue. Should homosexuality be a crime? No I don't believe so, it is up to the individual to work that out. God gave us a free will. But should same sex marriage be allowed? Absolutely not. Saying I don't believe you should be criminally penalized does not make me accepting of your lifestyle. But allowing for marriage absolutely would, and yes, I believe this would be against Christ and His way. He did not accept sin, but He accepted sinners.
Are there corrupt Christians in this world? Absolutely. Are there those who use Christ for personal, financial and political gain? I do not deny this. The Bible predicted these things, and outlines the consequence.
And I apologize to those who have been unrightly oppressed by bastardized Christians. It hurts my soul that power hungry men and women prostitute the word of God, an in so doing turn those away from the Truth and Love that is in Christ.
Those who claim to hear GOD's voice or see GOD can be, and often are, diagnosed as exhibiting symptoms of mental illness.
Perhaps we should all be careful about what we consider to be mental illness.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religious persecution.
Equal rights under the law should mean exactly that - equal rights for everyone.
Fundamental Christian belief that dictates gays and lesbians aren't "equal" to the rest of society violates our constitution.
I also think, having read the bible from a non-believer viewpoint, that David and Jonathon were more than just good friends. If you don't want gays and lesbians to "marry", how would you feel about them creating a "covenant" between them? Might I also point out that David stood up at Jonathon's funereal and stated "my love for him was better than the love of any woman." Perhaps Christians should rethink their position.
Gay groups should never have allowed the anti-gay forces to define the debate about "gay rights" as an issue of "Is Homosexuality a Choice?" The biological argument that sexuality is biologically determined has been refuted over and over again by sociological research, and was rejected by many radical gay activists in the 60s. The conservative "homophiles" made biology the issue, thinking that they only way for gays to win civil rights and be accepted was if science could prove that homosexuality was innate and that people were born gay. It was a bad political and scientific argument. There are many gays and lesbians who CHOOSE to be gay ( see the Queer By Choice Web site.
why make someone repress
It is extrememly unfair of you to think that it is ok for someone to repress feelings that they cannot help. You stretch the word of god to fit your misunderstandings. I pray that you end up with someone in your life being gay. You ask any normal thinking gay person what they think about being gay. And they will tell you they would not change it for the world. The only reason why any of us will ever go to heaven is because our lord jesus christ died on the cross for us. Without him none of us will ever be able to see the pearly gates. God has blessed me. I hope he blesses you with a more open heart. Cause hate gets noone anywhere.
The focus here on the man wanting to reaffirm his masculine self is just another case of what is shown in the DVD "It's Not Gay"...& also in the book written by one of the main characters IN that movie..book titled "Coming Out Straight". This focus on some of the reasons for the disorder/affliction (gay behavior) is certainly fitting in this article...including this man's father being a failure AS a father to him. The same goes for females sometimes too..but sometimes also there is the issue of sexual abuse which can lead some people to believe living GAY is the best for them...(such as so many abused females taking on the lesbian life as a "safety net" to keep men from approaching them for sex). Sometimes abused males & females begin to feel so low with no self worth...that they continue to live the life they so hate...often believing they're GAY when they are NOT. The Catholic Psychiatrist that the Pope chose here in the US to compose a letter for all bishops first & then other clergy..explains this MEDICALLY. Once this psychiatrist gave his views on the problem at hand & reasons...the POPE made his decision (which has caused much criticism for him). He made it clear that NO ONE could enter a seminary if it is determined that he IS or that he proclaims to be GAY. The Pope said it was his duty to insist on this because of the serious issues GAY lifestyle has caused for the church.
This Dr explains some of the reasons AS this man in the article faced (father issues)..or a few other scars which can leave deep emotional issues that lead the young men to believe they are gay..when in fact they are merely facing GENDER IDENTITY DISORDER (GID)...a common thing many boys & girls begin to face at puberty. The psychiatrist explains that among the young Catholic boys who entered the seminaries he believes as many as 50% DID enter it with SOME hope of being a good priest..but mostly with the belief that they would be WITH others who felt the same as they did...wanting to BE WITH other boys. He goes on the explain WHY teens with GID are attracted to "certain" types in this SSA (same sex attraction). He explains that it is usually an attraction TO someone of the same sex with personality traits or physical traits which the boy or girl (believing he's/she's gay)..really WISHES he would possess as his/her own qualities. Clearly it IS sad that most were not realizing that the young 14 yr olds going away from home (to join the seminaries) with these common "growing pains" of gender identity disorder & SSA merely needed guidance & professional help for whatever issues caused these normal conflicts to be so burdensome to them. Leaving these SSA issues unaddressed...and just looking the other way & since SO MANY entered WITH the issues MANIFESTING AS real problems instead of their overcoming them as they approached manhood (in the seminary) led to severe problems in the church (so long hidden). Then there's the issue of sexually abused boys/girls leaning towards gay lifestyle..when in fact LONGTERM sexual trauma often leads them to severe HORMONAL & Neurotransmitter upsets from the longterm STRESS they endured. THESE traumatized youngsters were then facing medical problems...needing both Endocrinological help (with normalizing hormones)..& Psych help (even if in natural forms, not necessarily medication) for normalizing neurotransmitters. Possessing BOTH, upset hormones & also upset neurotransmitters, creating a double problem to handle.. often leads TO the GAY lifestyle. For example.. with a female who might have too HIGH ANDROGENS from extreme stress following longterm sexual trauma.. she might choose to live the more "manly" life believing those male hormones are what's FOR HER...as she is now facing more manly voice, less feminine body etc...as often happens when androgens get too high (from stress especially). In fact...those hormones CAN be normalized..but it MUST be done in order for homeostasis to take place...otherwise it will remain out of balance (same for males who are accused of being more "feminine" than masculine). The Pentagon WAS correct for DECADES upon DECADES...& it IS sad that pressure was put for that to be changed in it's documents. The Pentagon & the Military once had it all worded as Homosexuality being a DISORDER. The Catholic Psychiatrist easily explains that the GID/SSA which leads the boys/girls TO GAY BEHAVIOR...AS A DISORDER.
Clearly it IS indeed a medical issue...whether from upset neurotransmitters, upset hormones, or just emotional feelings needing more normal direction. Many believe (& perhaps ARE correct)..that gay behavior IS a form of "sex addiction"...most easily noticed by their whole lives & lifestyle being BASED ON SEX. Homosexuality is a DISORDER indeed..sometimes VERY serious. Many agree that this gay lifestyle is sadly based ON SEX...& even their everyday lives standout more as they TALK all day about the ANUS, SEX, Dirty Talk in general, etc...very LITTLE normal conversation unless joking. The joking is usually their way of Clowning (their cover so to speak) in order to distract people from focusing on their being GAY. I highly recommend the DVD, "It's Not Gay"... The only bad rating it got was that it didn't include much at all about the dangers of gay lifestyle for females too. I also feel not enough attention is given to WHY straight medical professionals & straight clergy quietly focus so much on this disorder AS a disorder..besides the fact that it's viewed AS a SIN, as it's totally against God's law & He's WARNED us about that... Most straight professionals quietly focus on this AS a disorder because Gay behavior is SO ABNORMAL...totally abnormal ABUSIVE behavior..totally AGAINST NATURE, ABUSIVE towards another & to one's own body too..so definitely a DISORDER !
WOW!!
What a disgorgement of hate and disrespect.
What of people who are not and don't ever want to be Christian? Why are you trying to legislate your "religious" belief into law when our constitution was based on the belief that religion and law should be separate?
Find some other "crusade".
I agree with the long post about gay behavior being abnormal- The DVD mentioned is a good one- I have seen it and yes it only touches on the subject on "one" female who did exit the gay lifestyle so I can understand some thinking it should have included more about the risks for females too living that lifestyle- On the subject of exiting gay lifestyle, it is interesting that one of the first reminders given to gay men seeking professional help while wanting to exit the lifestyle is that babies are taught very young to not play with their stool, (fingerpainting as babies do when their dirty diapers leak poo, so they fingerpaint bed, walls, and so forth) and that the part of the body where it comes from is dirty. It goes on to remind the gay men that the stool itself as well as the stool area are dirty, certainly not intended for playing because it is solely for the purpose of the body eliminating dirty waste in the form of stool. With that in mind, the gay men wanting to exit the lifestyle are encouraged to view this part of the body that they were using for sex, as certainly never intended for sex or love, besides it being a very dirty part of the body. In this focus the (now former) gay men are encouraged to see that past behavior with using the rectum-stool area for sex and expression of so called love as very abnormal behavior. More and more this behavior is being viewed as abnormal, so most definitely any defending this even here online are doing so because they want to continue with the filthy acts which are far from being normal sex - what I mean by normal is the type of sex normally viewed as the type which is for procreation that led to all of us being born. The abnormal ones will continue to think, respond, and defend their lewd abnormal acts which are in no way normal sex acts.
Regardless of the overwhelming scientific evidence that suggests SOME biological component to sexuality, two related points in this article struck me as troubling. First, the article refers to all of the rights that gay people have based on the biology argument. What rights are we talking about here? Second, when those civil rights are finally granted gay and lesbian people, it won't matter why they are homosexual, just that they are subjected to discrimination because of it. As is the case with religion, the courts and The Constitution do protect people from discrimination based on choices they make, not only on biological identity.
This has always been a silly argument
Homosexuality is biological and like everything else it is caused by a virus.
Gay Germ Theory
http://zero.poynt.zero.googlepages.com/home
Autism and Schiz caused by virus
http://www.autismconnect.org/news.asp?section=00010001&itemtype=news&id=...
OCD caused by Strep Throat
http://www.slate.com/?id=2062577
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/press/pandasmechanism.cfm
Breast cancer caused by virus
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3159593.stm
This article smells of bias, shame and denial. The unwritten assumption is that being heterosexual is somehow correct and superior. Who says so? "While scientists have found intriguing biological differences between gay and straight people, the evidence so far stops well short of proving that we are born with a sexual orientation that we will have for life." Okay, now couple that with your articles title about orientation not needing legal protection. Now turn the whole argument the other way around. Why does the law protect heterosexual privilege? If no-ones orientation is set for life, then no orientation is correct or superior and marriage should be open to all. See what I'm getting at? This whole article is a farce because either way society can't justify denying equal right to gays. These guy need to stop trying to control others peoples lives. If they want to deny their true selves fine, but don't try to lat that shame and denial on everyone else. And not that it matters but I'm a straight woman. Nature loves diversity, society abhors it. We need tto embrace our differences, not try to supress them.
So what if I like men. I was reading about acceptance. You don't have to like it. Think about all the people living with their compulsive ideas over children. I can't tell you how relieved I was to discover its okay to like "same" sex. You throw a few ideas around in your head about procreation and birth, and community.
pedifiles and schetzofrenic; thats a disease. It doesn't come over you like an awareness like alcoholism. You reject it. It hurts. Dystonic. Some people got heavy duty religious values and can't handle "same sex" partners. You have to live with yourself and face your own demons. Different strokes for different folks. You can't live with them or with out them. Thats the same thing all the women say about men too!
For some reason my comments from yesterday weren't even there. You people can't even stick to an article on "pro-choice" I don't remember reading a bunch of crap about the bible.
I got the Idea we don't choose religion, and are not born with religion. Who ever said this country was free? Get a grip people. Everywhere I post I get sensored and I just talk about valid points in the article. You people need to get honest about your feelings.
when he leaves his tidy apartment in an ocean-side city somewhere in America, Aaron turns on the radio to a light rock station. "For the cat," he explains, "so she won't get lonely." He's short and balding and dressed mostly in black, and right before I turn on the recorder, he asks me for the dozenth time to guarantee that I won't reveal his name or anything else that might identify him. "I don't want to be a target for gay activists," he says as we head out into the misty day. "Harassment like that I just don't need."
Aaron sets a much brisker pace down the boardwalk than you would expect of a doughy 51-year-old, and once convinced I'll respect his anonymity, he turns out to be voluble. Over the crash of the waves, he spares no details as he describes how much he hated the fact that he was gay, how the last thing in the world he wanted to do was act on his desire to have sex with another man. "I'm going to be perfectly blatant about it," he says. "I'm not going to have anal intercourse or give or receive any BJs either, okay?" He managed to maintain his celibacy through college and into adulthood. But when, in the late 1980s, he found himself so "insanely jealous" of his roommate's girlfriend that he had to move out, he knew the time had come to do something. One of the few people who knew that Aaron was gay showed him an article in Newsweek about a group offering "reparative therapy"—psychological treatment for people who want to become "ex-gay."
"It turns out that I didn't have the faintest idea what love was," he says. That's not all he didn't know. He also didn't know that his same-sex attraction, far from being inborn and inescapable, was a thirst for the love that he had not received from his father, a cold and distant man prone to angry outbursts, coupled with a fear of women kindled by his intrusive and overbearing mother, all of which added up to a man who wanted to have sex with other men just so he could get some male attention. He didn't understand any of this, he tells me, until he found a reparative therapist whom he consulted by phone for nearly 10 years, attended weekend workshops, and learned how to "be a man."
Aaron interrupts himself to eye a woman in shorts jogging by. "Sometimes there are very good-looking women at this boardwalk," he says. "Especially when they're not bundled up." He remembers when he started noticing women's bodies, a few years into his therapy. "The first thing I noticed was their legs. The curve of their legs." He's dated women, had sex with them even, although "I was pretty awkward," he says. "It just didn't work." Aaron has a theory about this: "I never used my body in a sexual way. I think the men who actually act it out have a greater success in terms of being sexual with women than the men who didn't act it out." Not surprisingly, he's never had a long-term relationship, and he's pessimistic about his prospects. "I can't make that jump from having this attraction to doing something about it." But, he adds, it's wrong to think "if you don't make it with women, then you haven't changed." The important thing is that "now I like myself. I'm not emotionally shut down. I'm comfortable in my own body. I don't have to be drawn to men anymore. I'm content at this point to lead an asexual life, which is what I've done for most of my life anyway." He adds, "I'm a very detached person."
It's raining a little now. We stop walking so I can tuck the microphone under the flap of Aaron's shirt pocket, and I feel him recoil as I fiddle with his button. I'm remembering his little cubicle of an apartment, its unlived-in feel, and thinking that he may be the sort of guy who just doesn't like anyone getting too close, but it's also possible that therapy has taught him to submerge his desire so deep that he's lost his motive for intimacy.
That's the usual interpretation of reparative therapy—that to the extent that it does anything, it leads people to repress rather than change their natural inclinations, that its claims to change sexual orientation are an outright fraud perpetrated by the religious right on people who have internalized the homophobia of American society, personalized the political in such a way as to reject their own sexuality and stunt their love lives. But Aaron scoffs at these notions, insisting that his wish to go straight had nothing to do with right-wing religion or politics—he's a nonobservant Jew and a lifelong Democrat who volunteered for George McGovern, has a career in public service, and thinks George Bush is a war criminal. It wasn't a matter of ignorance—he has an advanced degree—and it really wasn't a psychopathological thing—he rejects the idea that he's ever suffered from internalized homophobia. He just didn't want to be gay, and, like millions of Americans dissatisfied with their lives, he sought professional help and reinvented himself.
Self-reconstruction is what people in my profession (I am a practicing psychotherapist) specialize in, but when it comes to someone like Aaron, most of us draw the line. All the major psychotherapy guilds have barred their members from researching or practicing reparative therapy on the grounds that it is inherently unethical to treat something that is not a disease, that it contributes to oppression by pathologizing homosexuality, and that it is dangerous to patients whose self-esteem can only suffer when they try to change something about themselves that they can't (and shouldn't have to) change. Aaron knows this, of course, which is why he's at great pains to prove he's not pulling a Ted Haggard. For if he's not a poseur, then he is a walking challenge to the political and scientific consensus that has emerged over the last century and a half: that sexual orientation is inborn and immutable, that efforts to change it are bound to fail, and that discrimination against gay people is therefore unjust.
But as crucial as this consensus has been to the struggle for gay rights, it may not be as sound as some might wish. While scientists have found intriguing biological differences between gay and straight people, the evidence so far stops well short of proving that we are born with a sexual orientation that we will have for life. Even more important, some research shows that sexual orientation is more fluid than we have come to think, that people, especially women, can and do move across customary sexual orientation boundaries, that there are ex-straights as well as ex-gays. Much of this research has stayed below the radar of the culture warriors, but reparative therapists are hoping to use it to enter the scientific mainstream and advocate for what they call the right of self-determination in matters of sexual orientation. If they are successful, gay activists may soon find themselves scrambling to make sense of a new scientific and political landscape.
Way to many commets for me to read here, so I'll just respond to the article.
It sounds like "Aaron" is trying to choose to be straight, in spite of gay leanings, because of cultural pressures. Who says he should choose one or the other? I've chozen to be bi ever since I've been conscious of that option. To me, bi is about recognizing the desire to be intimate with PEOPLE. It's also about recognizing the spectrum between being pure straight or pure gay. I don't feel I have to define my position within that spectrum, which is of course influenced by cultrural and environmental factors. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't feel even that much choice. Judgeing simply by actions, I'm probably a Two on the Kinsey scale, but in a neutral culture, who can say? My ideal would be neutral.
I also don't draw lines between commited and casual relationships. I want all my good relationships to be long-lasting, with no jealousy, exclusivity or possession. My ideal relationship is, 'Make love (sexually or not), not babies, and doubly reduce the causes of war'.
"Raparative therapy" sound like it must have once been derived from reparing whatever's wrong with someone. In our confused and inhibited sexual culture, almost everyone has something wrong.
As a licensed psychologist, I take umbrage with several issues in this article. First and foremost, all clinicians, not unlike medical practitioners are obliged to follow a code of ethics. In summary- "we are to do no harm". Because reparative therapy lacks peer-reviewed reviews that can essentially duplicate the reported results- following the carefully defined and outlined practice modalities are impossible. Reparative therapy is not a best practice in the field of psychology because it lacks a fundamental research oriented base such as double-blind studies, credible statistical analysis, and longitudinal studies (follow up with the graduates of this therapeutic modality) that can replicated. The author of this report clearly has missed the point for the APA imposing restrictions on practicing Reparative therapy. Until a therapeutic modality is developed that has credible research to substantiate its practice, clinicians should avoid any attempt to change sexual attraction/orientation. Religion, as Marx stated is the "opiate of society". To suggest that deliverance can and does occur through redemption by accepting Jesus Christ- a philosopher as your lord and savior is patently simplistic and potentially dangerous and certainly is akin to a mental illness as defined in the DSM IV. The religious right practices moral relativity, for instance, it's acceptable to shed the blood of the innocent so we in fact “don't have to fight them here”. So please before you cast judgment on your fellow citizens who are equally protected by the same Constitution-remove the log from your eye before you attempt to remove the splinter from other's eyes. In summary- religious influence on science historically has been disastrous and it's no less so today with reparative therapy.
SCIENCE, LICENSES, etc versus Common Sense
Regarding the licensed psychologist who posted his views, I would like to respond to some of this:
Unless a person or family has had children in therapy for longterm sexual trauma, few would be able to understand how difficult it is to find GOOD help for this type trauma which often leads to gay lifestyle.
It's after so many years of dealing with psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, "therapists", "couselors", and all who work in this field, that we feel we know enough about the field, including the strong points and the bad side of it. First I want to say that we have learned through meeting scores of such "professionals" that many in the psych field today went into the field because of severe problems the person or someone in his/her family faced. It is certainly a good thing when a person can pick up the boot straps, move on, & not let extreme problems ruin one's life. It's even better if those who have walked the paths to recovery can go on to help others. There are places in this country now which try to employ several professionals who have walked paths to recovery..specifically so they can better relate to patients walking the same paths. In contrast though, we have encountered over the past 18 years, some in the field we feel certainly are not healed, clearly in the field though because of their own past. A few years ago, we spent only 1 visit with a counselor chosen for our grandson when insurance changes forced my daughter to seek different help. Quickly we found another, certainly a better counselor. The previous one was so anxious, hyper, easily distracted, easily triggered, that we knew this counselor was in the field for his own personal reasons...and his own problems were still quite obvious, including our deciding by the time we left that he too had been sexually abused and was very supportive of gay lifestyle. Thank goodness we were successful in finding another counselor. In reference to our granddaughter and so many more years of seeking help for her so long before we had any clues of the years of violent sexual trauma from repeated drugging and rapes, this is indeed a heartbreak. I want to mention this because of the "psychologist" who just posted. Our granddaughter will be 18 in days. Long ago, when she was in kindergarten and we were being told she might need counseling because of things noted at school, we first turned to a highly recommended psychologist in our capital city. After testings & several visits, the psychologist insisted that our granddaughter had a behavior problem more because she needed discipline and better structure in her life since her mom had divorced her disturbed dad & she had been living between grandparents' homes & her own home entirely too much. One year later, when she was in 1st grade, her mom was encouraged by friends to seek an opinion of a top psychiatrist in our capital city, I REPEAT...a "PSYCHIATRIST". That man I now view as the most intelligent of all we've encountered. Before I say what he noted, while he totally DISAGREED with the psychologist, I want to mention that another psychologist tested her sometime between 6th & 7th grade. He decided she was "possibly" depressed but certainly a case of ODD.
A short time later, she was admitted to a facility for what a "STAFF" psychiatrist there felt was ODD & possible depression, certainly all decided from notes given by the psychologist who tested her. Now..I will mention what the EXCELLENT PSYCHIATRIST noted long before in 1st grade, while stating that he totally disagreed with the psycologist who insisted she was a behavior problem needing only more discipline & stability in her life. This intelligent psychiatrist on the 1st day he met her, saw the same strewn toys as I explained angered the psychologist. He instead told me to leave them all there...as he played with her, calling out to her while he rapped on the tighly closed toybox she had emptied so she could hide in it. She refused to open it until he gently spoke repeatedly to her as I sat there quietly watching & listening. After a long time..she threw back the lid, jumped up, smiling...with a type smile I had not seen in a very long time. He then sat Indian Style on the floor, then asked her to sit there while they talked. He then asked her if she knew what type Dr he is...noting that she had a pediatrician, a dentist, all doctors. She shrugged her shoulders. He then laid both his hands on her little chest...& told her that he is a Dr. who helps a person with their feelings inside THERE..in the chest..stating where her heart is. He asked her if she feels more sad..or has more happy days. She just shrugged her shoulders again...& then hung her head. He then noted the change in her when he reminded her of times that she didn't like. After several sessions, he explained why he so disagreed with the psychologist. He said discipline problem was totally far from the truth. He said he was noting multiple FEARS in the child..entirely too many for such a little girl. I explained her some mornings being found asleep on the floor ...curled up outside her mom's bedroom door. He said fear of the dark was just ONE of the fears in her..but he was detecting fears that were far more serious. He said he hoped we might focus on trying to learn WHY she was so very fearful in so many different ways. The psychologist had never once mentioned her being full of fears, but certainly did express his intense upset with her always pulling down entirely too many toys & leaving the room in total mess, even touching things that she should know NOT to touch. We learned (NOT FROM THE PSYCHOLOGIST), that a child or person who has NO respect for others' boundries is usually one who had been VIOLATED very young in some way, usually physically and/or sexually. We also learned that when dealing with sexual abuse, therapists often note that more BOYS DO NOT TELL than girls. Also, we learned that sexually abused females often use lesbianism as a safety net of a sort to keep men from trying to have sex with them. These past years have revealed intense traumatizing horrors our grandkis lived through. It is so sad that they face GID too now, the disorder which I noticed is mentioned in relation to the young boys who went into the seminary while they felt "different". We have also learned that GID is not uncommon at all, but it is certainly NOT good sense for any professional, especially today's PSYCHOLOGISTS and other health professionals to encourage gay lifestyle which is certainly abnormal. This lifestyle is the one which sadly has the highest rate of depressions and suicides, also the highest rate of STD's including deadly AIDS. I hope I have left some idea here of why a post from a psychologist does nothing to impress me.
A really superb article. Very well done. Unfortunately it begs the question and is a perfect example of why neither journalists nor scientists should engage in the unauthorized practice of law. When either get a clue, JUST a clue, what a 'fundamental' right is or what the 14th amendment 'due process' and 'equal protection' clauses mean we might, just might, actually be able to begin to have a conversation.
What a snake pit! Hiss, hiss, hisssssssss. Too bad self-righteous pea-shooter brains can't find the time to READ (R.E.A.D) what the author has to say. And, yes, too bad the author has little more than a thumble full of legal knowledge. When he can begin from legal square one he might have a clue what the 14th amendment means. Still, it's a thought provoking argument that good legal minds know merits hardly a footnote.
Actually, your research isn't under the radar of those concerned about the direction of the APA. I, for one, am particularly concerned by neurotic legal and medical professionals knowingly promoting "borderline" caretaker environments for children, regardless of the gender of the caretaker environment, in conjunction with the "normalization" of neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias. Whether a particular client is ego-dystonic or ego-systonic does not carry as much weight as maintaining the emotional health of children.
Wow! Where does one begin with all of the opinions flying back and forth in here. As for Randi, You are intitled to your opinion as is anyone else. We are allowed to choose. We get to choose whether we believe in God or a god or not. We get to choose whether we agree with homosexuality or not. The point that needs to be brought out in regards to our choices is, there is ALWAYS a consequence for our thoughts, actions,and words whether right or wrong.
I am a born again Christian. I believe the bible to be God breathed, God inspired, God spoken. I believe there is ONE God of three entities. "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe this because the bible speaks it and in my heart I know it to be truth. God has revealed much to me in my 47 years of life, some things which I like and some which I do not, but all have been significate to and in my life. Yes the bible speaks of war, fighting, being set apart, being called to an accountabilty of actions, words and thoughts. It is easy for those of you who do not want to believe to say that it is "fiction". Not believing it makes it easier for you to do as you please without conscience.
The bible is a book of truth, wisdom, knowledge, direction, laws and example.
The answers that one seeks can be found there if one would open their heart, mind, soul and spirit to the truth.
It is true. God loves us all, but he does hold us accountable for our sin. Should we genuinely repent and be sorry for our worng, our sin, we are forgiven. This does not mean that we can continually and knowingly sin only to ask for forgiveness.
In the book of Leviticus 20:13 it reads...."If a man lies wtih a man as one lies with a women, both of them have done what is detastable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Homosexuality is wrong. It is sin. This doesn't mean that homosexuals are to be hated, as a murderer or theif is not to be hated. The sin is to be hated, not the sinner. Romans 5:8 "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"
This is why Jesus allowed himself to be crucified. He was the PERFECT unblemished, sacrifice. By His blood we are forgiven.
You can live your life as you wish. You can be homosexual, you can be heterosexual. You can be a murderer. You can be a lover of humanity and God, but know this...........WE ARE ALL HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR CHOICES. There is a right way and a wrong way. There is good and there is evil. There is eternal life with Christ and eternal damnation should you choose not to follow Christ. As for me, I choose Christ! Philippians 1:21 "For to me. to live is Christ and to die is gain".
For those of you who refer to youselves as "Christians", I question your definition of "Christian".
Think about it. When you are "of Italy" you are "Italian". When you are of America, You are an "American" When you are of "Christ" you are a "Christian"
You are not a "Christian" unless you have become "born again" It states it in the book of John when Nicademous spoke with Jesus. John 3:1-21
Being "born again" is "shedding off the old self" living your life in Christ and for Christ".
Being a Christian ian't about religion, or going to church. It is Faith.
Our constitution and our laws were based on the bible.
Have I gone way "out there" for some of you? Not my intention. I am not trying to bash those of you who don't agree with me either, really wanting to help you see, learn and understand.
I am commenting on this all because my children, ages 21,19,16, and 15 are being asked, questions and assigned works in regards to homosexuality. they are being told it "You are born that way", they aren't allowed to say the word "gay" in school because they may offend someone. When the very fact of the matter is, this is what the "gay" communtiy call themselves.
I have 2 cousins that are gay and 1 a lesbian. I have a very dear friend from college who was once "straight" who is now "gay". I love them all. They are wonderful, loving, funny, tenderhearted people and yes, I have spoken with them in regards to their lifestyles and their sin, as I talk and seek the Lord in regards to my own sin. Sin is sin. If you have commited one, you have commited them all. One sin isn't more intense or greater then another. Why is there a need to make homosexuality more than what it is? It is SIN. The problem is that too many people don't want to accept it as such and must invertigate it and disect it to try and come up with an approach, a reasoning, to except it and tolerate it and embrass it.
Who would elevate sin to argument misunderstands God. Who would reduce argument to legality misunderstands the basis of law. Who advocates indifference misunderstands nature. Ideas have consequences.
The pseudoscience cited in this article to suggest that sexual orientation is fluid is all quite poorly researched.
The introduction to ``Aaron`` would seem to indicate that he has not become heterosexual (He describes his attempts to have sex with women as ``awkward`` and says that it just ``didnt work`` and notes that his prosects for a relationship with a woman are dismal.
All of this would hardly indicate anything beyond the tyical re~labeling that is a part of the ex~gay process. For example, the Mormon Evergreen group teaches its members to consider themselves ``Same~Sex~Attracted`` instead of gay (as if this new label has somehow made a tangible difference].
As for the Robert Spitzer study, it relied on phone interviews with hand~picked star students of an ex~gay group. There were no scientific measurements at all in the study.
Moreover, Spitzer himself has gone on record saying that any change seems to be very rare and that his conclusions are being misrepresented by anti~gay groups. This fact is conspicuously absent from the article. (Watch an interview with Sitzer here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo&NR=1 ]
Looking at the 1O~year ``study`` of women`s sexual orientations, the first problem with this study should be obvious, namely that it counts a simple re~labeling as a change. But if you count the percentage of women who dropped out of the study and then crunch the rest of the numbers, it becomes extremely unimpressive even as an indication that many women relabeled themselves.
To clarify, if 9 self~described ``lesbians`` left the study before it was over, one ``bisexual`` and one ``lesbian`` decided they were really more attracted to men and called themselves straight, and 4 of the ``unlabeled`` women decided they were straight, the rest of the numbers line u exactly the same for the whole ten year period.
The whole article cites gives more weight to fringe opinions than to the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of sane and well~balanced gay people`s or the mainsteam scientific community`s most compelling research.
Sexual orientation cannot be possibly a right. The right is of association and that is a basic right for mostly everyone, for a long time.
The real fight here is between right and wrong or in religious terms, good and evil. Is there any wonder sodomites try hard to trivialize the truth and to pretend anybody can live in a ‘relative’ world of no sin?
Is there any wonder why many of the sodomites equate themselves to beasts? They try to convince everyone that what they do, they do it because primates do it, or because the fruit fly does it; so, they do it. In other words, they do have the moral fiber of a primate or a fruit fly or strictly instinctive… not to mention godless.
Let’s go directly to the point then. Is anybody really persecuted or harassed because he or she talks funny? If they are, then the law contains every protection they need as people is harassed every single day for a variety of reasons all of them to do with human perception. But perception is very much different from reality, based on a truth that is absolute this is; unless of course, that perception is manipulated to include within one selected group of people trying to force everyone else into their own agenda, everyone else; starting from our children, to do what they do not want to see a real sin or real evil.
Sodomy is what is unacceptable and the rest of the so called sexual orientation issue is all addressable if not by medical or psychiatric means by social orientation… which they would not dare to include as a right.
The only objective someone could possibly have to force his/her behavior as a very special and protected right is not other than domination and nothing else and for that they will not stop at mocking a new illusionary right, but will go all the way, in schools, and everywhere they need and to achieve that they need to silence everyone who has a bit of brain left.
The issue is simply good versus evil and whoever thinks that tolerance is good, is simply put giving evil the blind eye and whoever thinks that this is just compassion, then nobody needs really to have any self control as anything can be a reason to demand compassion…
Well, I finally went and done did it, bought a shotgun last week down at Broadway Bait and Tackle.
If, during the next sixteen months, Bush should do away with the supreme court and install the triumvirate of Eleni, Nora and Ceasar in its place, I'll have it close at hand. In fact, I'm gonna check out tomorrow and check out bargains on an assault rifle.
Whether or not being gay is a choice is absolutely, positively, undeniably irrelevent.
Religion is a choice, celibacy is a choice,what you eat is a choice, what you drink is a choice, where you live is a choice, this is America, the land of protected choices.
Being gay does not prevent me from paying my taxes, getting to work on time, or voting in elections. It poses no threat to anyone else.
Yes, there are homosexuals who are promiscuous, liars, thieves, and worse --- but there are plenty of asexual, bisexual, and heterosexual people who are irresponsible and dangerous. And we don't blame their sexuality for their problems, so it stands to reason that being gay should not be treated any differently.
The real lives of homosexuals aren't a threat to anyone, and there is no proof otherwise.
So even if being gay is a choice, it is a choice that has no victim, no crime, we are not a danger to ourselves or the public at large. And since there is no harm, there is no reason to discriminate against us.
why are you guys gay anyway? is it because of sex? or is it because of love? if it's love, clearly sex isnt necessarily the way to show it. sex is a tool to get babies-duh.even a 4 year old knows that.
its a deal to us cause your spreading a hella diseases. so be straight...lead a healthy normal life.
Marilyn, That's an ignorant
-
tagged as:
- solution
Marilyn, That's an ignorant thing to say. As if straight people aren't having sex for other reasons besides to conceive a child. Plus, straight people are carrying just as many diseases as gay people are. Btw, if you're wondering, I'm straight.
I self-identify as a former homosexual and find the article very enlighting. More so when it was published before the findings from by Jones and Yarhouse, "Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation".
Please visit www.banap.net to read my story and what I have written from my research of homosexuality.
I ask for a meaningful, open, and honest discussion.
Larry Houston
From reading these posts I can deduce two things. 1)The progay movement is antichristian and 2)That Christians are antiprogay. These two groups seem to be enemies. The Jesus that I know would have compassion on gays, and also He would give them over to their hard hearts where they disagree. I am a Christian and I say let the progays have their rights. If we really believe that it is evil then time and history will prove it to be so once and for all. I don't hate gays. I have a whole lot of gay friends, and I used to identify as a gay man myself until I found my own sexual identity which I call Erosandro - which simply means that I enjoy passionately the company, time and affection with other men aside from being sexually attracted to them, which is a whole nother beast. Freedom for all. I say free the sexual minorities and give them the love that they deserve so that they can find their way back after they have become disillusioned. Of course if I am wrong, as I am not infallible, then gays will live happily ever after...who has a problem with that?
What about the notion that persons dissatisfied with the state of their lives are bound to try to change them? Fat people go on diets, those without financial means to the ends they desire take on a second job, and people who don't like that they're gay try to ignore, suppress, or "cure" themselves. Much like weight watchers, or pyramid schemes advertised in bogus emails, organizations like NARTH and individual therapists promote their services to their target audience. It is unfortunate that so many services out there that claim to amend conditions for which we feel shame or displeasure don't work, or even cause harm to us mentally and physically. Diet pills do this. Scam artists do this. And many misguided therapists can do this too. I think the essence of what we are debating here is an individual's right to try to change him- or herself. Pursuit of happiness, be that the way we spend our time, money, or energy, is a protected right in America. Just because we think something is b.s. does not mean other's don't have the right to waste their time in it. We've all got the right to be dissatisfied with our lives, and to try to change them. If something works for you, harmful "treatment effects" aside, then you're probably going to stick with it. You make your own peace with yourself. And as a psychologist and a gay person, I have found that peace in embracing what I have to work with, doing what I think is right, and not forcing my opinions on anybody else.
"It's a deal to us cause your spreading a hella diseases." I can't tell what Marilyn was trying to say on 9/24. It sounds like she's angry about something, and clearly confused, if not confusing. Whatever she's got (ignorance?), I hope IT isn't contagious.
anybody knows any good organisations that offer on-line help to help gay people change their identity?
Randi Schimnosky.. you are such a great speaker and advocate!! Eureka... you go! nice interpretation
I don't know much about religion but I just care that why being homosexual.. the below articles put forth a good issues and arguments... please read all and tell me what do you think... Randy
Gayness is ok God said dont have sex with the same gender not dont have sexual feelings for the same gender God made you gay you dont have a choice [deleted] u all
Re: the Comment by our MD which basically cites tons of research: It is meaningless in the sense that we have never had a "value free" society where people can make their own choices without fear or intimidation or coercion (from peers, religion etc.) Mother Jones I think would be appalled at this blog. With all due respect to Religion (and I do believe and attend Church but am Gay) whether or not Jesus died for our sins is really not relevant to this article! Although I would say to the die hard Christian writers - your extreme views might be easier to take if the Religious Right who so roundly condemns homosexuality was equally as fervent about the 25% of Americans without health insurance etc. I could go on, but I don't want this to be so long no one reads it!
Let's say that it is founded that homosexuality is %100, no doubt, biological. Does that make the actions of a homosexual to be moral? In turn, someone born with an 'aggressive' gene and commits murder would have to be forgiven because it's their nature. They can't help how they were born. What about people like Anne Heche? First she was gay....and now not??!! Sounds like she chose to be gay for awhile, and now not. I will never condemn people for who they are, but rather for their actions. I'm also quite tired of it being shoved in our faces by the mass media to accept it as "OK".
Just like any other teen and young adult I went through the process of not liking myself/finding myself. I hate the idea of "reparative therapy" simply because it is just another way of trying to make homosexuality an illness. I am a 62 yr old Lesbian who is most comfortable in my skin, I have been married and have a child, but the marriage did not work because I was trying to "make it" in the straight world, I'm NOT straight and I now embrace who I am and do it with love and affection for myself!
It is a choice. A person that is attracted to this life style should remain celibate(it also stops the spread of AIDS and STDs) and not practice it, since it is against natural law, according to the Church that Jesus Christ founded. The same goes for gluttony. People should refrain from overindulgence in the appetites of the flesh. Gluttony deprives others of needed sustenance. See all the starving children on TV? If you are fat, you are partially responsible. So just say no. Control your hand, don't put that food in your mouth.
See NewScientist.com - there was a recent brain scan study (Sweden?) the participants did not know what they were smelling. The Gay men's brain scans showed responses to male sweat (remember fresh sweat has no smell) whereas the straight men's brain scans showed reaction to female hormones extracted from urine. Tell me that is a choice. And for the idiots who keep on comparing gay to criminal - no one said one can't be celibate or control ones' own behavior. But stealing or killing is harming someone else - being Gay is not.
Attraction and desires can be controlled by choice, you may not chose what arouses you, but you can chose with whether to go along or to not. But attraction and desires is not a good argument to make because many people claim they have an attraction to something. Child rapists have an attraction to rape kids and according to them they do it because it's sexually arousing. Let me address the main issue of homosexuality and that will be the notion that gays are born gay. This is not true at all and many homosexual activist researchers have admitted that they have not found a gay gene at all.
http://www.albatrus.org/english/potpourri/homosex/born_gay_not_so_fast.h...
Also according to evolution, if being gay is genetic than we could be potentially screwed as obviously heterosexual relations are needed to produce offspring, but if people are more and more born with a gay gene and therefore attracted only to same-sex partners than they will have no desire to be attracted to the opposite sex and produce offspring so that humanity could survive. According to survival of fittest, the dominate species must continue to produce offspring in order to maintain it's strength.
I seriously hope there is no gay gene and so far their hasn't been any proof of it and that's a good thing.
Being gay doesn't hurt people???. That is wishful thinking, a gay man spreading STD's to another gay man is considered harming others regardless if the man knew or not, same applies to lesbians. And yes it does harm society when our government is spending billions of dollars researching cures to STD's that WERE CAUSED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU SCREWING APES, PIGS, AND NOW SCREWING AROUND WITH EVERYONE. Why should they when it's people like gays and those heterosexuals who have sex with many partners are causing the STD's to rise. YOU ARE KILLING US SO STOP IT WITH YOUR SINFUL PRACTICES. Golly talk about being sellfish; stealing is sellfishness, murder is sellfishness, being gay is sellfishness, not waiting for sex till after marriage is sellfishness.
"If science proves sexual orientation is more fluid than we've been led to believe, can homosexuality still be a protected right?"
I am not sure. But people with same-sex are gays. I am gay guy, wanna find friends. Contact me online, I am on gaymalecenter.com now.
THE gay lifestyle? You mean there is only one? Gosh. I'll have to tell my partner of 25 years and the other long-term gay couples we associate with that we somehow missed the boat on THE gay lifestyle: we don't go to bars or parades, we don't take vacations to Ibiza, etc. We are all professionals with advanced degrees who travel to archeological sites on vacation, have dinner parties with gay and straight couples to socialize, and enjoy looking at eye candy when it's present, but don't sample it any more than we buy whatever we see in a store window. There are a few studies that show that many assume "visibly gay" is "the only gay." Hidden (but certainly not closeted) gay couples are a much underrepresented group and as a result, most people who think they understand gay culture have only got part of the picture. Now, straight culture I understand completely: see I was once at Hooters and . . .
Being Homosexual or Bi-sexual does not confine itself to sexual activity. As some of the openly homosexual posters have declared, their relationship is just like any other heterosexual relationship. They have a healthy social life, are able to form deep and emotional links with each other that love brings, are mutually attracted to each other, in short, they are just like any other loving (guilt-free) heterosexual couple. I conducted a couple of interviews with homosexuals, and also discovered that the problems they face in their relationship are also just like any other heterosexual relationship. (Fear of abandonment, cheating, who does what housework, who picks the interior decor, etc.)Though it was only a 'few' interviews, I daresay that if given the chance, most homosexual relationships would develop, rather than having the occasional fling for fear of being caught (living in a oppressive society).
The only difference is that they cannot produce children, and the "idea" that being gay "encourages" promiscuous behaviour and premarital sex. And I guess this is what Christianity and Islam (not so sure about Hinduism) are against.
Let’s take the latter issue first. No matter how conservative the religion is, and how rigid the rules in that community are, there will always be that small faction who will HAVE premarital sex, sodomy and rape. They are just MUCH BETTER at hiding their actions. In addition, the women/girls/men/boys who are raped would most likely face active discrimination and disbelief and may even be punished for confiding in their parents and peers. It is also in these religions where the woman is deemed to have "Seduced" the man, and the woman is punished instead of the man.
And children. The purpose of sex is to produce children. I personally strongly disagree with this; then again, I am atheist. The world is having a population crisis. Some countries are simply booming with new mouths to feed, while others face a rapidly aging population. Meanwhile, the world only has XXXX resources. Already the size of fish which fishing trawlers haul from the ocean are getting smaller and smaller, indicating that it is the fry that are being caught. FRY, who cannot live to reproduce and create more fish for human and animal consumption and the starkly religious expect us to have more children? If the fish isn’t a good enough example, how about the destruction of the natural environment to create more living and commercial areas to support the ever-growing population, which will equate in the destruction of the wild species? Do the religious expect us to live in a land of only farms and domesticated animals, and farmed ocean fish where the wild species are extinct?
It is with this viewpoint, where I deem homosexuality as a healthy and natural behaviour in response to a booming population. Males and females who experience both emotional and sexual satisfaction, and who contribute (in taxes, jobs, keep the economy going) to the welfare of a country facing a booming population crises.
In the other country who has a rapidly aging population, Homosexuality would be considered as less healthy, but instead of focusing on the homosexuals, how about finding out just WHY the heterosexual couples do not want children? The other option is to have homosexual couples adopt the many many many abandoned children from the orphanage, who face severe emotional neglect, among others. Which leads to another religious argument that children of homosexual couples May grow up to be homosexuals themselves.... *BRaaaargh* (its just a belief, children have MINDS of their own. do not think that just because mom and dad were both males or both females, that I would also prefer a person of the same sex)
But in general, note to the religious, there will always be problematic people in the world. Do get your priorities right though. Homosexuals seeking acceptance in their community are not as detrimental a problem (and indeed, should NOT be considered a problem at all) as rapists, pedophiles, molesters, sodomizers, corrupted civil servants who embezzle public funds, people who order the killing of thousands of civilians, and do not monitor their soldiers who happily kill, rape and humiliate civilians, businessmen who cheat innocent farmers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, Exploiters etc...
True, it IS a fact that some of those people mentioned above are homosexuals themselves, but what distinguishes them from the ordinary homosexual? (and it is the ordinary homosexuals which many are actively persecuting, or actively attempting to convert)
1. Those people described may be the starkly religious, or acting (so called) on the voice of God.
2. Those people make use of violence, power/authority/blackmail and control to inflict from light to INTENSE harm on others. AND in the more powerful cases, forcibly silence those who speak out against them.
How is the ordinary homosexual a bigger topic than the people described above?
