Joined: Mar 19, 2011 Posts: 963 Location: United States
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 8:25 pm Post subject:
Vigilans wrote:
Nothing I haven't said to Ragtime himself before
I hope it does not come as a surprise I am defending Ragtime here. The man should really have a chance to defend himself from accusations. Just because you said it to him previously does not make it right to do this when he is probably never going to post on PPR again. in my opinion.
But I'll drop it. If I keep the thread on track I might feel less disgusted and disturbed, and maybe I can sleep better at night if something happens. _________________ "You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime
Joined: Aug 27, 2010 Posts: 4620 Location: mid atlantic coast usa
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 8:40 pm Post subject:
AngelRho wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
What have you actually said?
If youre a person with homosexual urges and inclination you can enroll in church based "ex gay programs" which even you admit are all a farce and a charade and essentially dont do anything.
It's disheartening to me that discussing emotional controversial topics too often seem to boil down to these kinds of anti-intellectual attacks. I never said they were farces or charades or that they don't do anything. Let the straw man attacks begin!
naturalplastic wrote:
But you advocate these programs at length anyway.
They are effective at helping people cope with unwanted same-sex attraction.
naturalplastic wrote:
Apparently this is your point: you dont have to commit suicide. There is an alternative. The alternative to suicide is celibacy.
Is suicide the only other alternative? I'm only pointing to one possible alternative that I'm aware of. I'm not aware of any others, but I don't doubt the possibility that there could be. Perhaps no one has taken the time to explore other possibilities? I dunno... But it seems clear to me that you've missed my point, and judging from everything else you've said it seems to me you've done so deliberately. And so it goes for much of everything else you've mentioned.
naturalplastic wrote:
If youre gay- you can either act on being gay- or you can get massive counselling to be celibate ( like a hetereosexual who joins a monastary). Celibacy is a more acceptible form of sexual deviancy than homosexuallity so thats what the chuch can and will encourage you to go for.
Thats what your post boils down to.
And its all fine and dandy.
No. My post boils down to available choices that do not involve living a gay lifestyle. I merely expressed one alternative. If alternatives exist, you can't say that living a gay lifestyle is something you have no choice over.
naturalplastic wrote:
The bible says its a sin to eat shellfish. So maybe I can get massive counselling to become an "ex seafood eater"too.
Actually, dietary laws in the OT are there to strictly highlight Hebraic culture identity in such a way to set them apart from other people. You might need some help if you wanted to convert to Judaism, though. Christians don't care what you eat.
naturalplastic wrote:
But you never deny that being gay is innate nor do you deny that it is incurable.
So why exactly are you arguing with people whom you agree with?
I'm disagreeing with the idea that the gay lifestyle is the only direction someone with unwanted same-sex attraction can go. It's just as cruel to suggest that someone who doesn't want to be gay still has to accept homosexuality as their way of life if they're struggling with unwanted attraction. I would think the gay community would understand more than anyone how destructive it could be to compel someone to be something they either are not or do not wish to be.
My contention is that someone who becomes an "ex-gay" might find that to be actually more beneficial than remaining an active homosexual if they do not want to be an active homosexual.
@WilliamWDelaney: I'll try to get back to you, but I found your quotes to be a little difficult to follow. I'd love to respond, though, and if it takes some time it's not that I'm ignoring you.
This is pure doubletalk.
Ok- I apologize for impllying that you actually said the words "charade and a farce" even though you failed to make a single arguement to dispel the popular image that such programs are charades and farces, and that you continue to damn these programs with such incredibly faint praise that you might as well have said that they were "charades and farces".
Moving on
So youre point is that you are saying these programs are "an alternative to acting on your gay impulses".
How are they "alternatives"?
You either engage in gay sex, or you dont.
These programs apparently cant turn you into a heterosexual so what youre saying must be that these programs are for the purpose of making practicing gays into celibate gays.
Thats what I said -that YOU said.
You deny that that is what you said.
Then you go on to state what you did say. And what you say that you did say is something that can only be understood to mean: "there are alternatives to having gay sex- they are- getting coaching to be gay -but-celibate".
Which is the very thing I said that you said( that you claim that you didnt say).
OK... "alternatives to the gay lifesytle".
What exactly does that phrase mean?
If not being gay-but-celibate- then what does it mean?
Okay, my original question was, Are they gay people who think being gay is a choice to where if anyone were to ask them if they chose to be gay, they'd respond "yes" and may even reject to people saying that it's not a choice.
Joined: Jun 20, 2008 Age: 24 Posts: 12091 Location: La belle province
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:06 pm Post subject:
HerrGrimm wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Nothing I haven't said to Ragtime himself before
I hope it does not come as a surprise I am defending Ragtime here. The man should really have a chance to defend himself from accusations. Just because you said it to him previously does not make it right to do this when he is probably never going to post on PPR again. in my opinion.
But I'll drop it. If I keep the thread on track I might feel less disgusted and disturbed, and maybe I can sleep better at night if something happens.
Don't worry, he'll be back _________________ Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
In the case of gay men, though, mixed-orientation relationships always go straight to Hell
ALWAYS?
Unless something changes. My first lover and his wife divorced, and he is probably a better father to his kids now than he was before the divorce. His son is in college on a track for a career in medicine, and he is doing awesome. His daughter already knows which cooking school she wants to go to. Yeah, a mixed-orientation relationship can work out just fine if the father has enough consideration for his children to get OUT of that situation before he breaks down and kills himself or does something else completely stupid.
Quote:
That's pretty strong language.
No, THIS is strong language.
Quote:
Are you absolutely certain that there can be no exceptions to this rule?
I am speaking to you from experience. IT DOES NOT WORK. If you think that somehow you have beaten the system, you are living in a fantasy.
Quote:
Does it always necessarily follow that an alternative to accepting a gay lifestyle is destructive, though?
Does it always follow that giving children cocaine to snort recreationally is always bad for them?
"A recent online survey of 1,600 gay Mormons conducted by Utah State University revealed that about 65 percent underwent ex-gay therapy and 86 percent considered such therapy unhelpful or harmful. Another revelation: Sergio Viula, founder of Brazilian evangelical ex-gay group Movement for the Healthy Sexuality (MOSES), has just come out as still 100 percent gay. He even revealed what really happens in ex-gay therapy programs—hint: it involves fasting and having sex with men."
Quote:
Can alternatives work?
No.
Quote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
You cannot "pray the gay away," and it's not healthy to try to suppress it.
Well, strictly speaking, praying is a gesture of faith. So if there is a God and He listens to prayers, He is powerful enough to enact those kinds of changes in someone's life. I'm not trying to get into a religious debate, though.
You just did. There are enough Christians who are gay, and many of them believe that they were made the way they are for a reason. To them, the person who is acting AGAINST the agency of God is you.
Quote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
"Lifestyle choice"?
When I was in the closet, my "lifestyle" consisted of rocking back and forth on the floor, moaning incomprehensibly. I was so withdrawn from society, I didn't even know how to talk with other people conversationally. I had frequent fits of extreme emotional distress in which I occasionally had to be physically restrained. And the stimming was non-stop. My relationship with my family was abusive and occasionally violent. I was heading for the state mental ward. That's not a "lifestyle" at all. It's just waiting to die.
But you DID make the choice to deal with it the specific way you did.
You call that a choice? Let me be clear with you, I cannot live a normal life without a constant partner in it. It is not realistic. After my first lover and I broke up because he couldn't handle having to choose between me and his children, deciding that making do with casual relationships would be better for both him and his offspring, my mental health went downhill again. Not because I was in the closet because that wasn't the case anymore. My mental health was going South. This time, though, instead of relapsing into the old autism, I started developing weird delusions, and I became so emaciated that you could see every one of my ribs. A couple of years later, I finally found my next partner, and by then I had chronic gingivitis and spent most of my day smelling like a coon's ass. I was creative with my substances of abuse, though! I was popping tablets of vitamin B6 as a substitute for eating instead of snorting cocaine! At least I managed to be somewhat imaginative in my self-destruction, huh?
Quote:
[Side note: I'm truly sorry for what you went through. Whatever differences of opinion you and I have, I don't at all believe you deserved any of those things. FYI I came from a pretty rough home and at one time felt that my father dying was the biggest relief I had in my adolescent years.]
Oh, try living in a home with a younger brother who has a drug problem and a father who has him so far up on a f***ing pedestal he thinks that you're the one stealing all his crap to pay for street medication, which he thinks you do routinely, to the point that he sends the police to search your house, after you've moved out, looking for objects stolen from a local church because he happened to see you wandering the streets during the night because they were more pleasant to be in than your flea-infested, mold-ridden, un-air-conditioned hell-hole of a shack that you are too deranged with depression to take care of properly. Your father still thinks that you are a psychopathic lunatic bent on killing his no-longer-so-little-or-innocent trophy son even after he saw you stand still to allow him to punch you repeatedly in the face until you had blood streaming from your nose because you knew that he was whacked-out on drugs and wasn't in control of what he was doing.
Now, consider that my present lover, who is right in the next room from me, is the person who ultimately persuaded me to patch-up my relationship with my parents, and I subsequently persuaded my father and mother to try to repair their relationship with their youngest son, who had just gotten out of rehab and probably wouldn't have made it without his parents' moral support. My grandmother, who is a Southern Baptist and lifetime teetotaler, is thoroughly convinced that God personally arranged for my lover and me to find each other because our love for each other has been such a blessing for both of our families.
Tell me, would I or my family have been better off if I had gone to receive your "conversion therapy"? Am I living an "unhealthy lifestyle" by having a constant lover who has pressed me into helping save my family from crisis? Is there something wrong with me being at a healthy weight now? If God is trying to tell me that I shouldn't have a gay lover, the message is not getting across.
Quote:
For you, though. I mean, I can't make any more sense of your previous relationship with your family any more than you could reconcile my childhood. But that should tell you that no two situations are ever exactly the same. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for someone else.
Look at the statistics. If you are a statistical freak, good for you. However, advising people to try to suppress their feelings for members of the same sex is wrong.
You are making it all about the dirty things that two people of the same sex might do. The right way to see it is that we acknowledge that any kind of sex is a dirty and ugly thing, but what makes the difference is having someone in your life who knows enough about your demons to condemn you and knows enough about your spirit to forgive you. For gay men, .
I'm curious, why do you see sexuality, or physical sexuality as something bad? That sounds extremely unhealthy.
You are making it all about the dirty things that two people of the same sex might do. The right way to see it is that we acknowledge that any kind of sex is a dirty and ugly thing, but what makes the difference is having someone in your life who knows enough about your demons to condemn you and knows enough about your spirit to forgive you. For gay men, .
I'm curious, why do you see sexuality, or physical sexuality as something bad?
I don't. I see it as dirty, and it is. However, when there is feeling in it, when there is true lovemaking, the difference is like night-and-day between empty sex and lovemaking. I have had empty sex, and I honestly get more pleasure out of smoking a cigarette, which I don't do anymore because I took up jogging for a while and wanted to see how many extra miles I could stack on.
But there is more to it than that. If your lover has a depressive disorder, usually it would be wearing to be in the position of having to help alleviate it. However, if it's someone you love, it is a joy to be able to do something to help bring light and happiness into that person's life. If your lover were to get very sick, where it would be taxing and frustrating to play nurse to a stranger for too long, it's just different if the person you are caring for is someone who means something to you.
The difference between lovemaking and empty sex is like the difference between being a member of a respected honors fraternity and hanging out with a bunch of losers who don't do anything with their lives besides smoking dope and playing beer pong. You get social acceptance in both situations, but one fills you with pride. The other is actually kind of embarrassing.
With a genuine lover, you have a sense of duty toward that person, and it's actually very fulfilling.
So what is offensive to me is that some people talk about "the gay lifestyle" as if being gay is all centered around people trying to be different or trying to buck the restrictions of morality. "Gay lifestyle" implies that it's some ultra-hedonistic enterprise centered around glamour and generally behaving like an overgrown child. I can't help being gay, but the only motivation for my real lifestyle choices is to live with as much sense of normalcy and stability as I can, within my "god-given" limitations.
Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on Sat May 26, 2012 2:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
You are making it all about the dirty things that two people of the same sex might do. The right way to see it is that we acknowledge that any kind of sex is a dirty and ugly thing, but what makes the difference is having someone in your life who knows enough about your demons to condemn you and knows enough about your spirit to forgive you. For gay men, .
I'm curious, why do you see sexuality, or physical sexuality as something bad?
I don't. I see it as dirty, and it is. However, when there is feeling in it, when there is true lovemaking, the difference is like night-and-day between empty sex and lovemaking. I have had empty sex, and I honestly get more pleasure out of smoking a cigarette, which I don't do anymore because I took up jogging for a while and wanted to see how many extra miles I could stack on.
But there is more to it than that. If your lover has a depressive disorder, usually it would be wearing to be in the position of having to help alleviate it. However, if it's someone you love, it is a joy to be able to do something to help bring light and happiness into that person's life. If your lover were to get very sick, where it would be taxing and frustrating to play nurse to a stranger for too long, it's just different if the person you are caring for is someone who means something to you.
The difference between lovemaking and empty sex is like the difference between being a member of a respected honors fraternity and hanging out with a bunch of losers who don't do anything with their lives besides smoking dope and playing beer pong. You get social acceptance in both situations, but one fills you with pride. The other is actually kind of embarrassing.
With a genuine lover, you have a sense of duty toward that person, and it's actually very fulfilling.
OK, I don't agree with that at all, but I'm busy tonight, I'll try to get back to you later.
OK, I don't agree with that at all, but I'm busy tonight, I'll try to get back to you later.
Actually, instead of arguing the point with me, just state your position on it. The truth is, I will probably understand where you are coming from, and I might actually agree with you to a certain extent. I don't see why our views ought to be mutually exclusive.
"A recent online survey of 1,600 gay Mormons conducted by Utah State University revealed that about 65 percent underwent ex-gay therapy and 86 percent considered such therapy unhelpful or harmful. Another revelation: Sergio Viula, founder of Brazilian evangelical ex-gay group Movement for the Healthy Sexuality (MOSES), has just come out as still 100 percent gay. He even revealed what really happens in ex-gay therapy programs—hint: it involves fasting and having sex with men."
Quote:
Can alternatives work?
No.
Quote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
You cannot "pray the gay away," and it's not healthy to try to suppress it.
Well, strictly speaking, praying is a gesture of faith. So if there is a God and He listens to prayers, He is powerful enough to enact those kinds of changes in someone's life. I'm not trying to get into a religious debate, though.
You just did. There are enough Christians who are gay, and many of them believe that they were made the way they are for a reason. To them, the person who is acting AGAINST the agency of God is you.
Quote:
For you, though. I mean, I can't make any more sense of your previous relationship with your family any more than you could reconcile my childhood. But that should tell you that no two situations are ever exactly the same. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for someone else.
Look at the statistics. If you are a statistical freak, good for you. However, advising people to try to suppress their feelings for members of the same sex is wrong.
Ok, but here's the thing: Your responses here attempt to show that therapeutic or reparative methods for dealing with same-sex attraction are NEVER an alternative. They are ALWAYS destructive and NEVER work as a permanent solution. What you need to understand is that is very strong language typically used to rationalize whatever point the user is trying to make through gross exaggeration. You're attempting to show that there isn't one single alternative to accepting homosexuality for oneself and that not one single person can in any sense change his or her orientation.
You have to understand that you cannot make generalizations like that and make statements that are reflective or reality. Visagrunt even pointed this out regarding statements I made, though my intention was never to suggest something that was universally applicable. Visagrunt also asked what reasons there might be for someone to choose dystonic alternatives. I clearly can't speak for all ex-gays, but I can say that for Christian ex-gays, religion is a BIG reason. The problem with evangelical
Christianity is that homosexuality is incompatible with its teachings. To somehow reconcile homosexuality and Christianity is to create something new entirely, and for the Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction, this may not be a desired outcome and may possibly be even more dystonic than accepting homosexuality. It's just as wrong to be a hypocrite here: If someone struggling with same-sex attraction does not want those feelings and does not want to abandon his faith as-is, he shouldn't be compelled to. What you are basically saying here is that such a person is compelled to be gay no matter what and that there is no other choice or alternative. If you can find at least one ex-gay who has found alternatives to be helpful and effective, the assertions you've made here that there are NO alternatives are false.
The Jones-Yarhouse study demonstrates one program that HAS been effective with 67% of respondents indicating either some kind of change or a desire to continue with the program. While this does not in any way indicate that the program is effective for everyone, it strongly challenges the idea that a reorientation program (or whatever you want to call it) NEVER works. The Jones-Yarhouse study shows some 40+ people either experienced a positive change or are at least committed to it. The idea that it CANNOT work EVER is clearly false.
Like I said, I can't entirely speak from personal experience on this. Sure, I've struggled with confusing feelings in my life. But I also understand why I had those feelings--domineering classmates in throughout school judging me for being effeminate, etc., and wondering if I really was gay just because so many other people told me I was. The fact is I'm not; I find the idea of a close relationship with another man to be utterly revolting. The issue is that when so many people say the same thing, we tend to start believing it. I just chose not to believe them.
What about someone who HAS been there, though? How about this:
Dennis Jernigan wrote:
Imagine my horror when, at 10 years of age and already knowing my struggle, I overheard the men whose image God had been built in my mind begin discussing homosexuality... So when I heard them describe what they thought of someone like me (even though they did not know they were talking about me, I did) my reaction was simple: these are the men who know God. They hate people like me. God must hate me. I felt absolutely no hope of help from them or from God…
A friend invited me to live with him at the end of the summer of 1981 and he soon discovered my secret. Rather than rejecting me and humiliating me (which was what I had grown quite accustomed to) he did something I had honestly never seen demonstrated before. He extended the real and practical love of Christ to me!
What did that look like? He told me he loved me no matter what my struggle was!
Keep in mind that Jernigan is an outspoken ex-gay Christian deeply devoted to his faith. At one point he had committed to celibacy but ended up falling in love (with a woman), getting married, and having 9 children.
This is obviously something by a Christian for Christians, but I believe it reflects the spirit of how Christians should approach homosexuality from a Biblically-centered mentality. I also suggest perusing the website if you'd like to know more about Dennis Jernigan and his views on homosexuality and Christianity.
For the purposes of this discussion, it's pretty clear that alternatives to homosexuality do exist and people going that route tend to do just fine. It's inappropriate to suggest that there are NEVER any alternatives and that gays seeking a way out are ALWAYS going down a dystonic path.
Ok, but here's the thing: Your responses here attempt to show that therapeutic or reparative methods for dealing with same-sex attraction are NEVER an alternative. They are ALWAYS destructive and NEVER work as a permanent solution. What you need to understand is that is very strong language typically used to rationalize whatever point the user is trying to make through gross exaggeration. You're attempting to show that there isn't one single alternative to accepting homosexuality for oneself and that not one single person can in any sense change his or her orientation.
I'm attempting to get you to understand that it's wrong to make people believe that they can just choose NOT to be gay, when all the evidence in front of you demonstrates clearly that this is not true. It is simply morally wrong.
Quote:
The problem with evangelical Christianity is that homosexuality is incompatible with its teachings. To somehow reconcile homosexuality and Christianity is to create something new entirely, and for the Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction, this may not be a desired outcome and may possibly be even more dystonic than accepting homosexuality.
So you acknowledge that there is something wrong with evangelical Christianity, not with gay people, but you think that gay people ought to change, not evangelical Christianity. Is that the reading I am getting off of you?
Quote:
It's just as wrong to be a hypocrite here: If someone struggling with same-sex attraction does not want those feelings and does not want to abandon his faith as-is, he shouldn't be compelled to.
You will not meet an ex-Mormon who tells you, "I sure miss being treated as if I were mentally diseased and praying all day and night to a god who never answered." People who give up destructive religions are usually better off for it.
Quote:
The Jones-Yarhouse study
"Among the studies found to be unreliable was a 2007 study by evangelicals Mark Yarhouse and Stanton Jones. Their work was funded by Exodus and it utilized activist research subjects who were recruited with help from Exodus and the ex-gay therapy lobby NARTH. Critics said the study suffered from the following shortcomings:
The study was conducted by two supporters of ex-gay ministries.
Jones and Yarhouse originally sought 300 participants, but after more than a year of seeking to round up volunteers, they had to settle on only 98 participants.
During the course of the study, 25 dropped out, and one participant’s answers were too incomplete to be used.
Of the remaining 72 only 11 reported “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment.” (direct quote). Some of these 11 remained primarily homosexual in attraction or, at best, bisexual, but were satisfied that they were just slightly more attracted to the opposite sex, or slightly less attracted to the same sex.
After the study ended, but before the book was finished, one of the 11 wrote to the authors to say that he lied — he really wanted to change, had really hoped he had changed, and answered that he had changed. But he concluded that he hadn’t, came out, and is now living as an openly gay man.
Dozens of participants experienced no lessening of same-sex attraction and no increase in opposite-sex attraction, but were classified as “success” stories by Jones and Yarhouse simply because they maintained celibacy — something many conservative gay people already do.
The study purposely declined to interview any ex-gay survivors: people who claim to have been injured by ex-gay programs and who have formed support groups such as Beyond Ex-Gay. Despite — or because of — this omission, the authors of this study make the unfounded claim that there is little or no evidence of harm resulting from unproven, unsupervised, unlicensed, and amateur ex-gay counseling tactics.
In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it. And the study’s supposed success stories were gay celibate individuals who adopted false labels to direct attention away from frequently undiminished same-sex attraction."
Like I said, I can't entirely speak from personal experience on this. Sure, I've struggled with confusing feelings in my life. But I also understand why I had those feelings--domineering classmates in throughout school judging me for being effeminate, etc., and wondering if I really was gay just because so many other people told me I was. The fact is I'm not; I find the idea of a close relationship with another man to be utterly revolting. The issue is that when so many people say the same thing, we tend to start believing it. I just chose not to believe them.
The man who does our dog's grooming is extremely effeminate, but he is not the least bit gay. He has six children by his lovely wife, who helps him run his small business. Also, one of my s.o.'s oldest and dearest friends still looks like he is at most in his 20s, yet he is now in his mid-60s: he isn't gay, either. Being effeminate or young-looking and being gay are two different things.
I only decided that I was thoroughly "gay" after I had been in a relationship with a man for five years, and I realized that my attraction to any other human being had been diminished to nothing. I had almost no libido, which was a switch because, before, I had had a somewhat supercharged libido. My lover and I could have gone without sex entirely. Just being together, when we could, was enough. I feel that he brought into my heart a rare and beautiful peace.
You know, he once found a red wrist-band lying on the ground, one New Year that I visited with him. It was twilight, and we had been in conversation with a friend of ours as we walked along a beach...he always had a bit of an eagle's eye like that. He plucked it up, and he snapped it around my wrist. This must have been four years ago now. It was two months later that we had a conversation, and I told him that being apart from him all the time was wearing on me, and I was willing to move down there and try to apply for a college down there...which was not really a realistic prospect. He was very upset that he might interrupt my education. Then he started talking about how little his children wanted to have to do to me, and he suggested some outlandish ways he might work around continuing his visitation with them without his children having to come in contact with me. I told him, "it sounds like you are choosing me over your children. When I fell for you, it was because you were the kind of man who would never ever do that." There was a silence. When we talked on the phone with each other, the day before yesterday, I asked him how his children were doing. They are doing excellently. The boy, who is in college, just made a 96 on a chemistry test, which was only diminished by failing to tell the units on one of his answers. The girl is having a wonderful adolescence, and she is excited about going to a good cooking school. I felt so proud of my ex. He has done so well by them. I put my right arm around my present lover as we talked, which has a yellow wrist-band on it that the man I am with now has a copy of on the same hand. The red one is still on my left wrist, where it has been for four years.
I could never have that with a woman.
Quote:
What about someone who HAS been there, though?
Dennis Jernigan is bisexual. He started dating his wife in college, and he was only having affairs with men on the side.
My s.o. is also bisexual: his first lover was a man, but he also had a long and wonderful marriage with his wife, whom he talks about frequently.
I am not bisexual. I am gay, and that is not going to change.
OK, I don't agree with that at all, but I'm busy tonight, I'll try to get back to you later.
Actually, instead of arguing the point with me, just state your position on it. The truth is, I will probably understand where you are coming from, and I might actually agree with you to a certain extent. I don't see why our views ought to be mutually exclusive.
OK. Sex is one of the basic human needs, I don't see why it should be considered inherently dirty. Being homosexual is of course a lot more than sex. But sex isn't dirty, not even casual sex. I don't see myself as ever being able to find a partner I could actually live with. If I want to have sex once in a while and someone wants to have sex with, that does not make it sordid or dirty.
Sure a longtime relationship can be great, but it is not the only valid way to live your life.
Joined: Mar 19, 2011 Posts: 963 Location: United States
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 4:49 pm Post subject:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Quote:
The Jones-Yarhouse study
"Among the studies found to be unreliable was a 2007 study by evangelicals Mark Yarhouse and Stanton Jones. Their work was funded by Exodus and it utilized activist research subjects who were recruited with help from Exodus and the ex-gay therapy lobby NARTH. Critics said the study suffered from the following shortcomings:
The study was conducted by two supporters of ex-gay ministries.
Jones and Yarhouse originally sought 300 participants, but after more than a year of seeking to round up volunteers, they had to settle on only 98 participants.
During the course of the study, 25 dropped out, and one participant’s answers were too incomplete to be used.
Of the remaining 72 only 11 reported “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment.” (direct quote). Some of these 11 remained primarily homosexual in attraction or, at best, bisexual, but were satisfied that they were just slightly more attracted to the opposite sex, or slightly less attracted to the same sex.
After the study ended, but before the book was finished, one of the 11 wrote to the authors to say that he lied — he really wanted to change, had really hoped he had changed, and answered that he had changed. But he concluded that he hadn’t, came out, and is now living as an openly gay man.
Dozens of participants experienced no lessening of same-sex attraction and no increase in opposite-sex attraction, but were classified as “success” stories by Jones and Yarhouse simply because they maintained celibacy — something many conservative gay people already do.
The study purposely declined to interview any ex-gay survivors: people who claim to have been injured by ex-gay programs and who have formed support groups such as Beyond Ex-Gay. Despite — or because of — this omission, the authors of this study make the unfounded claim that there is little or no evidence of harm resulting from unproven, unsupervised, unlicensed, and amateur ex-gay counseling tactics.
In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it. And the study’s supposed success stories were gay celibate individuals who adopted false labels to direct attention away from frequently undiminished same-sex attraction."
I am pretty sure every study like this fails because of the first bolded part.
I would not really go around saying Exodus International is a success when a co-founder and a major member decide to quit the organization and have a relationship together. Or that most ex-gay techniques involve some sort of homoeroticism from "people who used to be gay", like cuddle therapy. I think you can still trust the source despite their political leaning:
However, I agree with one Christian on this matter:
AngelRho wrote:
Hey, what happens behind closed doors is nobody else's business, right?
Source. For his own behavior involving a third person (and a second woman) in his heterosexual married relationship. While saying ON THE SAME THREAD he supports societies criminalizing homosexuality (which would answer some questions here). So his position is amazingly hypocritical and disingenuous. The guy is trying to be reasonable concerning this thread, yet all the time he thinks it is acceptable to have laws which imprison or kill gays for their behavior. Apparently legal force is not going to be mentioned as a remedy for homosexuality on this thread, when it is obvious such punishment or forcing them to go to conversion therapy are the only two options for him concerning these "sinners"...they are not allowed to be in peace, they have to change, and he is going to make sure it happens. The fact that AngelRho is passing off he finds gays accepting who they are as OK and reasonable is sheer nonsense. _________________ "You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime
Joined: Jan 05, 2008 Posts: 3726 Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
I'm attempting to get you to understand that it's wrong to make people believe that they can just choose NOT to be gay, when all the evidence in front of you demonstrates clearly that this is not true. It is simply morally wrong.
Very interesting. And exactly who or what defines morality? Is morality applicable to all people?
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
So you acknowledge that there is something wrong with evangelical Christianity, not with gay people, but you think that gay people ought to change, not evangelical Christianity. Is that the reading I am getting off of you?
Nope. But I suppose how you judge it depends on which side you're on. Evangelical Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible. I'm less likely to have a problem with evangelical Christianity.
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
You will not meet an ex-Mormon who tells you, "I sure miss being treated as if I were mentally diseased and praying all day and night to a god who never answered." People who give up destructive religions are usually better off for it.
True, ASSUMING that their religions really are destructive. What tends to happen is that RELIGION, as in religion-for-its-own-sake, is destructive. In one sense I don't really consider myself a religious person because I don't believe that there is any magical power in the things I do for the sake of my faith. I act because I believe; I don't act to influence the behavior of a deity. Many Christians will tend to attend church every time the doors are open, pay their tithes, sing in the choir, go on about how much God has blessed them, and tend to look down on those who don't dress right for church. Of course, many of these same are little old widows who haven't worked an honest job in their lives and are living off what an affluent husband left them. It's easy to be critical of those who have hit rough times when you haven't had a single bad day your entire life. Same goes for fire-and-brimstone preachers who probably grew up in deeply religious or fundamentalist households. And I do think that a religion that only really represents the trappings of faith and not the real thing is potentially severely destructive.
But I don't believe that the whole of Christianity is like that, or at least it doesn't WANT to be like that. As the more destructive elements fall by the wayside, I hope that what you'll actually see is a lot closer to what Jesus taught than what we've too often seen. Self-righteous people need to repent just as much as us other sinners.
Anyway--I tend to view Mormonism as destructive, but for different reasons. My own views aside, I've met many Mormons and with one exception I've found them to be very sweet people if a little "off." I AM "a little off," so it seems to me Mormons tend to really take to me. But I've also met ex-Mormon apostates, and it only took ONE encounter with an ex-Mormon to figure out religion was not a welcome subject and seems to do more harm than good..
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it. And the study’s supposed success stories were gay celibate individuals who adopted false labels to direct attention away from frequently undiminished same-sex attraction."
Ok, but TWO is a pro-gay vehemently opposed to a supposed "ex-gay myth." One might rightly guess that they would offer criticism based on bias.
On the other hand, the Yarhouse study is an informal study spurred in part by the lack of research into the efficacy of treatment programs for unwanted attraction. Part of the issue we're exploring is the idea that there is no way out of homosexuality. You said that conservative homosexuals tend to be celibate anyway, so based on that alone you admit that there is a viable alternative even without "treatment." That Yarhouse noted SOME change indicates that the Exodus program has at least SOME promise for a few individuals. As I've repeatedly said, no one is suggesting a "cure." But it does present people who do not want same-sex attraction with an alternative.
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
The man who does our dog's grooming is extremely effeminate, but he is not the least bit gay. He has six children by his lovely wife, who helps him run his small business. Also, one of my s.o.'s oldest and dearest friends still looks like he is at most in his 20s, yet he is now in his mid-60s: he isn't gay, either. Being effeminate or young-looking and being gay are two different things.
Somewhat off-topic, but I do wish this fact was addressed more often. Discussing the morality of homosexuality is one thing. Harassment based on orientation or appearances is something else entirely.
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Dennis Jernigan is bisexual. He started dating his wife in college, and he was only having affairs with men on the side.
Uh oh...but I thought gay men sometimes DID go through the motions of heterosexual relationships. I mean, given Jernigan's background, it seems he had a lot to lose by coming out, not to mention having struggled with those feelings most of his life. I do believe what we have here is the old "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
I am not bisexual. I am gay, and that is not going to change.
Even the results of the Yarhouse study indicates that only a tiny minority actually report a sharp decline in same-sex attraction or complete reorientation. No one is claiming any cure. But neither is it correct, accurate, or even appropriate to view active homosexuality as the only direction one can take.
I found this interesting:
Quote:
The study purposely declined to interview any ex-gay survivors: people who claim to have been injured by ex-gay programs and who have formed support groups such as Beyond Ex-Gay. Despite — or because of — this omission, the authors of this study make the unfounded claim that there is little or no evidence of harm resulting from unproven, unsupervised, unlicensed, and amateur ex-gay counseling tactics.
That's not really a flaw in the study since the purpose of the study was to examine a population of enrollees in a specific program. The group that they actually got to study over a period of time didn't indicate any harm had come to them, and the goal of the study was to observe those who actually stuck with the program for the stated length of time. Most scientific studies, even formal ones, have a specific goal and generally do not deal with things outside that scope.
What I'm curious about is exactly what would a "control group" be. Active homosexuals? Heterosexuals? Both? What exactly would we be comparing? Rate of conversion of heterosexuals/homosexuals to the opposite orientation without counseling?
I've had my share of graduate research methods, so I'm wondering if a control group for this particular study is really necessary. I don't see why it would be because in testing whether one can choose homosexuality or possible reorientation, it seems all one really needs to do is gather the relevant facts if we're not doing a comparative study in which a control group would be necessary.
Either way, evidence does seem to show that people for whom same-sex attraction is unwanted actually do have a choice--not a choice in what they feel, but as to what they do with those feelings.
OK, I don't agree with that at all, but I'm busy tonight, I'll try to get back to you later.
Actually, instead of arguing the point with me, just state your position on it. The truth is, I will probably understand where you are coming from, and I might actually agree with you to a certain extent. I don't see why our views ought to be mutually exclusive.
OK. Sex is one of the basic human needs, I don't see why it should be considered inherently dirty. Being homosexual is of course a lot more than sex. But sex isn't dirty, not even casual sex. I don't see myself as ever being able to find a partner I could actually live with. If I want to have sex once in a while and someone wants to have sex with, that does not make it sordid or dirty.
Sure a longtime relationship can be great, but it is not the only valid way to live your life.
Okay. My view on it is that people should no more be condemned for reacting negatively to unwanted sexual content than they should be condemned for having sexual desires in the first place. I consider the, "eww, gross," reaction we have to sexual content, in most settings, to be perfectly natural and acceptable. However, I do not refute what you say, that it's a natural and generally honorable function of our bodies, and I think that our former disagreement was entirely semantic.
