posted
And I've already acknowledged, Theca, that I know this. And, that my particular take on this subject doesn't rely on 100% concordance.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People with sickle-cell anemia are more likely to survive malaria; thus sickle-cell anemia is selected for (and thus more common) in populations where there is malaria, or who came from areas where there was malaria, because people in those areas without sickle-cell anemia are at a survival disadvantage.
I'm already emailing him with the correction, but pardon my suspicions that he is going to keep asserting that anything hereditary should be constant across history.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, how many of your 3 million people sought therapeutic treatment?
The 800 success stories speak loudly because very few people have even tried this. It's been lambasted by so many, and called names like "brainwashing" that I don't imagine a large percentage of your 3 million gay people have attempted therapy.
So that argument doesn't hold. We don't know how many people tried treatment and failed. 800 compared to 3 million isn't a big number, but if only 1000 sought treatment and there were 800 successes, that's a meaningful statistic.
Now, I pulled that 1000 figure out of the air, I don't know what their success rate is. But I'm sure I can find some reference to it.
It won't be until late tonight though, time to cook supper, my hubby will be home soon. And that's a reason to smile. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't have numbers handy, I'd find interesting your response to if more people considered themselves to be harming themselves before they acknowledged their homosexuality (say, after a long period of attempted heterosexual relations).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I predict you'd find most homosexual people try to fit into a heterosexual lifestyle initially. While anecdotal evidence does not prove anything, I can't think of a single homosexual person I know who I've talked to in depth (a few over a dozen, in this case) who didn't have at least one, and usually more, heterosexual relationships (including sex in at least a couple cases) in an attempt to "be normal" before acknowledging they weren't heterosexual.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, sickle cell anemia is a simpler disease. Sickle cell anemia is a problem with a single gene. It happens to be a critical gene required in making blood. So if a person has 2 copies of the defective gene...then they have no intact copy of the gene. So then basically 100% of people with that genotype will express it.
Other traits like diabetes or depression may have multiple genes involved that affect not only whether the disease is present; but how severe it is. There may be other genes involved that can also affect how and when the disease is expressed. I have no idea how a phenotype like height or skin tone gets expressed, for example, but I am sure it is much more complicated than the expression of sickle cell anemia.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, definitely, I'm just pointing out that hereditary != constant across populations (throughtout history, or what have you).
Heck, skin color is hereditary to a large extent, and lo, it is not constant across populations (again, throughout history or whichever).
Skin tone's expression is definitely quite complex; we know the tone depends directly on at least three different properties of melanin polymers, and the factors influencing those are quite complex. Also, we only know of a few of the genes involved in the production of melanain polymers, mainly those tied to specific mendelian disorders such being albino.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, due to some bad coding on their site, I'm not able to submit their form -- it relies on some malformed javascript that on my platform redirects me to another page whenever I try to type.
I'll try with another browser later, or call their toll free number when its available.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I think that there are people who can "learn" to want a different gender than the one they start with.
A "straight" person can later become "homosexual." A homosexual can later "become" straight. Sexuality does not need to be black and white, a constant throughout life.
However, the fact that hundreds of people have changed sexuality does not mean that millions of people can change sexuality.
---
It has been commented in this discussion and I agree, that no matter which direction a sexuality is, a change in sexuality should not be forced on anyone. Homosexuality is not a disease to me, is not a disease to the Medical Profession, is not a disease to millions of people. We do not have the right to force "treatment" on people. If they wish to chance their affinity during the course of their lives, good for them. I'm sure millions of people have changed sexuality preference over the course of their lives, and millions more will. But it's their choice, either way.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
PREFACE: I don't think there's anything immoral about homosexuality, or that there is any reason why somebody should be encouraged to try to change their orientation. I think that if we were most concerned with the emotional well-being of young people, the best message we could give them is that there is nothing wrong with them as they are. (I understand where you are coming from if your religion tells you this message is incorrect, but this is what I believe.)
BUT:
I guess I'm playing Devil's advocate here, and I fear I'll get lambasted for even daring to make this comparison, but to those who say that attempting to change your orientation is impossible, unhealthy, destructive, etc etc etc . . . Isn't this pretty much what we expect/hope/wish pedophiles would do? Please understand that I am not suggesting these inclinations are at all analogous, or that one is associated with the other. But they are both cases of a sexual attraction that deviates from the accepted norm. And so I think there is some value in discussing these different attractions side by side.
Is it impossible to change what one is attracted to? Is it automatically undesireable/destructive/unhealthy to do so?
posted
The only problem with this vague analogy is that there are victims in pedophilia. A victimless "crime" would be a better vague analogy. Can't think of one right now, attempting to study...
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went to great lengths to say that the two were not morally equivalent, but I have noticed before that you don't read posts before you respond to them. There was nothing the least bit vague about my analogy. My analogy was not to the moral aspect, but to the fact that we do expect some to overcome their sexual predilections, and this seems to contradict the PC Truth that it is impossible for homosexuals to do this.
I'm not saying homosexuals should, but questioning our certainty in two seemingly contradictory stances.
If you have nothing to say other than to insult me, I would encourage you to keep quiet and let people who are willing to address my post, rather than insult it, do so.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
you don't think adults can be manipulated and victimized? Is there something magical that happens on your 18th birthday that changes you from a victim to a willing participant?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
I read your post. I did, I did. In a quick reply, I felt that while it is socially acceptable to "reform" pedophiliacs, I think the reason is entirely because of the existence of victims.
I know you weren't trying to draw a parallel between the two. I just meant that a more interesting question of Changing what one is sexually attracted to would need a victimless set up.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You simply misread my phrase "vague analogy." All I meant was to refer to your analogy, even though you said it wasn't an analogy, as something with a setup. Does that make any sense?
I was just calling it so as a method of referring to it, not as disbelieving your statement.
posted
I apologize. I think I had you confused with somebody else on this board with a vaguely similar nickname, and it seemed to me that you were dismissing my point by explaining to me the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. And you're right, I interpreted "vague analogy" as a dismissal and an insult. Clearly, I overreacted, and I'm sorry.
I think you're right that we (mostly) only consider it acceptable in the case where there is a victim (taking for granted that most of us don't see a victim in homosexual love). Moreover, I don't think it's possible to think of a victimless setup for an analogy. (The only thing I can think of, and it too is a poor analogy, is masturbation. But most of us who see no need for homosexuals to curb their attractions also see no moral issue in masturbation. *shrug*) That's kind of my point. That we, as social "nonconservatives," for lack of a better term, take for granted that people can't change their nature--except when the chips fall down, when the stakes are high enough, we back away from that stance. And so I'm wondering if we should back away from "it's impossible" and simply argue from the standpoint of "it's not necessary."
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm, this thread started out talking about people who decided to change for themselves. There's lots of "victimless" behavior people decide to change about themselves. There's lots of "victimless" behavior people think should change in other people.
quote:Also, I predict you'd find most homosexual people try to fit into a heterosexual lifestyle initially. While anecdotal evidence does not prove anything, I can't think of a single homosexual person I know who I've talked to in depth (a few over a dozen, in this case) who didn't have at least one, and usually more, heterosexual relationships (including sex in at least a couple cases) in an attempt to "be normal" before acknowledging they weren't heterosexual.
Depressed people try to make themselves feel happier. ADDers try to be organized. But they usually can't without treatment and help. How many of these people sought help from therapists or organizations or ministries that attempted to help them change their orientation?
If those that want help (again, not talking about forcing people who are unwilling) seek help, and are successful in changing, then shouldn't we acknowledge there may be some validity to it?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No prob, Icarus. I was just very scared when I read your post and was like, "Ahhh!! What happened!!!"
Mkay, here's a corollary to the questions... If it's okay for someone to change their mind about sexual preference (which I believe it is), under what circumstances does one define Forced/Pressured? (If I say that Forced or Pressured is wrong)
Does Guilt-tripping someone imply pressured? What is brain-washing in this context? If the conversion is in name but not in spirit, is the wife a victim?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I know. But I think it's an interesting line of thought to follow. For one thing, I think the people who think this is to be applauded, both heterosexual and homosexual, probably tend to share some beliefs about whether homosexuality is "okay."
Actually, I haven't touched the issue of whether this is to be desired, and I certainly haven't touched the issue of compelling people to change against their will. But I think it's fair to say that the conservative Chritian viewpoint, even when it is tolerant or loving of the sinner, still does acknowledge its belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, and so it does encourage (not compell) those who will listen to attempt to change.
And some people are saying that change of this sort is unnatural, impossible, unhealthy, and not to be desired. I'm just pointing out that even these people draw a line somewhere. So, while I think you and I disagree on thye larger issue, I don't think I'm sayying anything that you disagree with on the particular issue of being "Ex-Gay." (Though I personally suspect it is a misnomer.)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good questions, Sun . . . Here's another one: Would ethics/morality dictate that somebody attempting to live as an "Ex-Gay" must tell his or her spouse? Or is what his or her orientation "was" irrelevant?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I guess it's the same to me as whether a spouse has the obligation to tell the other about any past relationships. If they ask, then you should. And you shouldn't lie about it, at any rate.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If i found out a lover of mine was ex gay I'd make them go back to being gay somehow... It just doesn't seem right... I would not want to be used as ssomeone's "beard" and i'd never do that to another person.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah, double post and I deleted the first one so now it looks strange for my group hug to be after Syn's remark.
Anyway, syn, why would you say you'd encourage that person to "go back gay?"
I mean, if people can change, and they are now happy with their change, why would you want them to go back to a state that they obviously weren't happy with?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Here we go. If someone wants to change their sexuality, then it's nice when resources are available. However, for me some of these "resource groups" would look an awful lot like a proselytizing religious group. I have the same problem with proselytizing groups as I do with a "forceful" methodology by a Change Their Sexuality group. I think both impinge on one's personal sovereignty (complete independence and self-government).
Advertising is one thing. Guilt-tripping and excessive persistence are another.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By definition, a group that wants to help gays turn from their lifestyle and back to heterosexuality is going to be a group that believes heterosexuality is normal, and that homoesexuality is something that needs to be treated.
Therefore, most of those groups are going to be religious in nature, because mainstream psychology and psychiatry does not hold that view.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I don't have a problem with them being religious.
I don't have a problem with religions just because they're religions.
It's the question of emotional manipulation. Maybe most "gay help" groups don't use any emotional manipulation. And people who really want that resource take it upon themselves to find it. But there are a few that do use emotional manipulation. And those are the few that I don't like.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I wanted to add something about guilt-tripping as you put it.
I see a Christian counselor, the group she belongs to was supported originally by a large evangelical church.
None of my therapy has ever included assigning guilt. Christianity is not about guilt, it's about redemption and love. My therapist struggles very hard to help me let go of the guilt I carry, she never adds any to me.
My understanding of these ministries (and I can only go by things I've read, I have no personal experience with them) is that they strive to help people re-identify with their gender, and repair or heal any wounds that may have occurred at an early age like sexual molestation, abandonment by a same-sex parent, and other things that are considered risk factors for homosexual behavior.
Now, I will insert my standard disclaimer that I know that every person abandoned by their father or sexually molested or otherwise traumatized in childhood is not going to become a homosexual, and not all homosexuals have such incidents in their past. They are risk factors, not absolute determinants.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see your reply, now Sun, and I will agree with you that emotional manipulation and assigning guilt is not something I would endorse.
I'm not aware of any that use these tactics, but I'm admitedly not exactly involved in that type of ministry. They could exist, and I would have a problem with them too.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I studied Gandhi for a class I am in, and I found it extremely interesting that he had a crappy marriage until he took a vow of CELIBACY! After that, he devoted himself to his work in serving mankind, and it seems that he and his wife became closer and more intimate, in all areas but the bedroom.
If this is possible, then why not gays choosing to live celibate or heterosexual marriages (that may or may not involve sex)?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with people of ANY orientation choosing to partake in a sexless marriage; I have a problem, however, making sexlessness a prerequisite of marriage for some people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, I have been to one of these Ex-Gay Movement lectures. Shortly after a fellow I knew "came out" to some of the people in our Christian group, the group put on one of these lectures. I found it to be offensive and stupid. My friend had left - I only heard the gossip. I never got to say goodbye to him. And then here were all these people trying to make people do things they either couldn't or weren't ready for. There was much guilt-tripping and "Jesus saves" going on. Not much logic or helpful advice. It was at this point when I began seriously questioning my current religious beliefs.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree it certainly is possible for homosexual people to choose one of those routes. Just as its possible for heterosexual people to follow Ghandi's example.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And, that my particular take on this subject doesn't rely on 100% concordance.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
