Ok, let’s go with Zeb’s conclusion that 30% to 50% of people can “change” their orientation. For the moment, let’s ignore that every major medical and mental health organization states that this is generally not the case. Let’s also ignore that “change” in the studies Zeb references is a misnomer, since it really pertains to behavior rather than orientation.
So what about the remaining 50% to 70% of gays that are unable to change? Where is the PROOF that the reason these people couldn’t change was due to lack of motivation? I haven’t seen a shred of evidence to support that accusation.
What about the possibility that sexual orientation exists on a continuum, and that it was the people at the moderate point of the continuum that were able to “change”?
What about the possibility that homosexuality has multiple etiologies, and that people with certain etiologies CANNOT change their orientation, no matter how hard they try to do so?
What about the general conclusion by the medical and mental health organizations that attempting to change one’s orientation, at least for these people, is DAMAGING to them?
If Zeb really cares about the well being of gays, what would he say to these people?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Everyone (out of jail) has thoughts and feelings that are not the best actions for themselves or the situation.
[/quote]
You do see the logical flaw here, right? Who are YOU to judge whether or not living according to one’s orientation is the “best action” for oneself? Do you know more than the medical and mental health organizations, which have conclusively and unanimously determined that attempting to live contrary to one’s orientation can actually be DAMAGING?
I’m really curious to know what harm you think I am causing by living true to myself as a gay man. I don’t engage in risky sex. I don’t do drugs. I’ve only been drunk ONCE in my entire life.
Please help me understand how I am hurting myself, as opposed to the very real pain that I KNOW I endured for years while repressing who I was?
Or maybe I can put myself in a black person’s shoes and say, “Gee, this guy is out of line”. Just because I’m not black doesn’t mean I can’t place myself in the psychological role of a black person.[/quote]
Of course not. But it does mean you can’t speak for black people by taking these perceptions and declaring them the African-American Party Line™. Well, you can’t do it without coming off as a self-righteous racist, at least.
You DO realise that the person you were responding to in your above quote (Prof X) IS BLACK, right? I think he’s made it clear what he does and does not consider disrespectful and offensive.
Besides which, how can someone have a “poor gauge of what’s offensive” anyways? Either they’re offended or they aren’t.
The real world is not even remotely related to “relativism.”[/quote]
Since the above makes no sense, I’m going to write out what I think you mean to say: That the real world is composed of absolutes in material, intellect and moral values. In which case:
I realise you were addressing vroom with this challenge, and it’s also beside the point, but I like goofy challenges. Here goes:
Adipose tissue is a practical and efficient source of bodily nutrition during times of famine or aerobic exertion.
Additional fat around the abdominal area can structurally reinforce the torso during heavy lifting and/or physical combat.
Additional body mass is an advantage in counterbalancing physical challenges such as those in Sumo wrestling or truck pulling.
The lowering of one’s centre of gravity due to adipose accumulation can result in greater static and dynamic stability when carrying heavy objects at the shoulder or above the head.
High rates of deitary fat consumption, which can be a significant factor in obesity, can ensure a sufficient supply of calories, testosterone precursors, and fat-soluble vitamins during physical exertion.
Lacking a religious motivation, you have NOTHING on which to substantiate your claims. Ignore the facts if you want. I know that I won’t change your religious beliefs. But if you ever try to legislate your bigotry into laws that affect me, expect a fight.[/quote]
forlife, you are the fucking MAN! [1]
Excellent contributions to the thread. And not that it’s necessarily my place to accept your thanks, but you’re most welcome for the support =)
-Glee
[1] Or, “you are fucking the man”. You know, depending on your mood.
I question how many people have truly changed their orientation. For example, I remember reading about John Paulk, an “ex-gay” who was program director for Love Won Out, and along with his wife was the poster child of the ex-gay movement. Paulk was spotted in a Washington, DC gay bar after he supposedly had turned straight.
I don’t think one example proves anything.[/quote]
It proves that ‘ex-gays’ can be Godless hypocrites.
Actually, it makes perfect sense.
-Homosexuality can limit overpopulation. Consider that second children have higher incidences of homosexuality than first children, mentionned earlier in this thread.
-Homosexuality in higher vertebrates can lead to close emotional attachments and channels of communication that might not be available otherwise. Note that, as also mentionned earlier in the thread, Spartan soldiers were homosexual, or bisexual, as a rule. Homosexuality was also common in the Roman army.
-Homosexuality of convenience can sate sexual urges in situations where no women are accessible.
-Homosexuality can correct the ratio of heterosexual females to heterosexual males in societies where medical technology and lifestyle countervail the typically-high rate of adult male death.
I can go on, but I think I’ve made my point.
Weren’t you the one who brought up Darwin above? You do realise that Darwin’s basic assertion is that anomalies ARE the natural order of things. They are the fundamental enactor of evolution.
Why change a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% (gays who want to marry) of the population?
(You know I never thought I was going to type that line again…)
[/quote]
To reflect modern times. The same reason it was changed to no longer require dowries, or required the participation of clergy, or changed from ownership to union, or ammended with the possibility of divorce, or divorce was made available to women as well, or was allowed between people of different ethnicities, or allowed to be performed by civil servants as well as clergy, et al.
What homosexuals want are special rights!
[/quote]
No, they want EVERYONE to be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
Besides which, since you’ve gone through so much trouble to prove that homosexual promiscuity is dangerous to homosexuals out of a heartfelt and sincere concern for their well-being, you’re obviously pro-gay marriage, right?
I do know better. I know that christianity is a man-made religion…
Then who was Jesus Christ?
[/quote]
From what little historical record we have of him, the most historically-accurate guess is that he was an all-loving, megalomaniacal, charismatic, irreverent, visionary disestablishmentarian shit disturber who became the focal martyr when Christianity was created. That’s why its architects named it after him.
And since we are on the topic of gay marriage. When was gay marriage ever allowed in any civilized society?[/quote]
You mean besides the Ancient Greek, who are one of the founding cultures of all Western civilisation? [1]
[quote]We (the 75% of the population who are against gay marriage) are causing homosexuals to be promiscuious by not allowing gay marriage. LOL
Every legitimate study done demonstrates that gays are in fact promiscuious.
How can we make you be promiscuous?[/quote]
By re-defining promiscuity. [1]
[quote]I wonder if you would similarly have accused blacks and women of bitterness when they were striving for equal rights in earlier generations.
Blacks and women? What does being a homosexual have to do with blacks and women?[/quote]
All three have extensive histories of being subject to bigotry. [1]
Actually, homosexuality has been scientifically proven genetic many many many many times. [1]
The only reason that it’s not universally accepted as wholly genetic is that there are non-genetic factors to homosexual behaviour which have also been proven.
-Glee
[1] Have I mentionned that I love when arguments can be refuted by one single sentence?
I think you will find far more of the politically correct registered as democrats. And most of them are liberals. Not all, just most.
[/quote]
You know, you keep spouting “political correctness” as some sort of immaterial evil. A very republican tactic, like the modern use of the word ‘terrorist’.
Let me spell it out for you: ‘Political Correctness’ is the reason that black people were emancipated in 1864. It is the reason women are allowed in the workplace. It is the reason you can’t brand or scar someone on the face based on allegations of criminal activity.
There is nothing inherently wrong with political correctness. What is wrong is when it is taken to an unreasonable extreme, just like 99% of everything ever in existence anywhere.
True, but I also have a deeply held “statistical agenda” which is filled with facts that don’t stack up well for homosexuals having sex. It’s unhealthy, painful and very costly in the end. :)[/quote]
39% of all traffic fatalities in the USA in 2004 were alcohol related. Therefore, one must logically conclude that, at 61%, sobriety is the leading cause of traffic fatalities.
Okay, to be serious – we all know you have sources, Zeb. You’re great at using Google. Now you need to learn to analyse this data [1], or to contend with others’ analysis.
-Glee
[1] This includes knowing when a given data set eludes conclusive analysis.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
"In their book MEN WHO BEAT THE MEN WHO LOVE THEM: BATTERED GAY MEN AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."10 The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.11
(Rolls eyes) Great! Now the US Department of Justice is in on all of this…this…hate information…Imagine claiming that married women suffer less violence when in a traditional family!
[/quote]
It’s not possible for homosexuals to perpetrate or undergo “domestic abuse”, because homosexuals don’t form monogamous relationships, remember?
Are you saying that if you think it you have to act on it? If I was married and saw a sexy babe, that wasn’t my wife, and wanted to get busy with her then I have no choice but to do the deed? Right? Just like gays, right? No choice![/quote]
Actually it’s not just like gays. If you act on sexual urges beyond your control (because you ‘have no choice’), it’s sexual assault. If ‘gays’ act on homosexuality, they’re homosexuals. See how one is a crime and one isn’t?
Well, since there is at least one prominent counter-example of the above in this very thread, we obviously can’t trust ex-gays to be honest about whether they are ‘just fine with it’ or not. Let’s see some supporting sources.
Wow, I went on a pretty wicked rant there, didn’t I? Sorry all, I just get all excited when I’m presented with the opportunity to confront harmful modes of thought.
To bring the discussion SOMEWHAT back on topic, I would consider seeing Brokeback Mountain [1], inasmuch as I consider plenty of films I don’t end up seeing because I’m not a really big movie buff in the first place.
Before Alexander, I might have been turned off by the idea of a film in which homosexuality was a central theme. The Rocky Horror Picture Show, with its combination of transvestism, homoeroticism and the arcane, in the format of a musical, certainly gave me pause.
But I was pleasantly surprised with Alexander – the chemistry between Alexander and Hephaestion was tastefully portrayed, and actually quite sweet. And the fact that I was appropriately distracted by the steamy and visceral love scene between Alexander and Roxane (in which one can see bush) certainly didn’t hurt.
-Glee
[1] Despite the fact that the end has been spoiled in this thread
