…I’ve “liked” girls since I was in pre-school. My gay friends have “liked” boys since they were in pre-school. No prompting. NO life changing event. They say they just knew.
[/quote]
the problem here is that even in preschool there has been a considerable amount of time for the environment to influence the individuals phenotype, especially considering that the younger u are the greater ur environment can shape ur future behavior. Also while it may seem as if no “life-chaning event” occurred it may in fact have… we dont completely understand the roots of homosexuality and as such we can’t really say with total certain that seemingly harmless events may not lead to homosexual desires
Not to say this is choosing… but there is a lot of room for the environment to influence this, and i dont think with this example it can be written off as soley genetic
The problem here is that people say things that aren’t true all the time. Im not just referring to lying but if uve looked into cognitive psychology at all ull find that ppl in all facets of thinking how false impressions of the way they think and the way they perceive the world.
On top of this, there is an advantage gay people would procure in simply saying that they were born that way and it is not a choice.
They get “let off the hook” to a certain degree by ppl who think being gay is fucked up or wrong… if they were born that way it is less averive
once again i could actually care less whether gay ppl choose or not… im not bothered by it either way…
im just pointing out ur arguments aren’t wholly convincing
First off, I don’t believe gays should change unless they want to change. I also think that no gay would change by coercion anyway. But, what do you have against a gay, who wants to change, trying to change?
Other than a justification for a lifestyle that many don’t agree with, why is it so important to you that a gay, who legitimately wants to change, cannot?
I believe that the negative effects are related to mental and physical health. HIV was spread significantly because of gay sex. So the lifestyle is risky, or can be risky in terms of the spread of disease. So that is one very big reason why society would prefer being gay was a choice to help reduce the negative outcome to gays and others.
Why do you feel that you are in a place to critique other people’s lives?
My gay brother and his gay friends don’t have AIDS, they don’t go around spreading AIDS and they don’t harm anyone else. This being the case, you still have a problem don’t you?
I think your problem with gays runs deeper than diseases. Why you even brought up the analogy about child molestors shows your issues. Then you go on to say that “oh you’ll probably say it’s not the same because it’s between consenting adults”? Well no shit, why bring it up at all then if you already know its bullshit?
Interesting how everyone ignored my previous posts.
[/quote]
I’m not sure why you think I’m criticizing anyone. I’m just staying that statistically gays have a very risky lifestyle in terms of health outcomes. That doesn’t mean your brother does any of that. And he may be very responsible, but statistically many gays are not.
Twins studies demonstrate that approx. 1/4 of chronic disease is genetic; meaning the other 3/4 is lifestyle - choice - related.
So if we can apply the results of these studies to being gay it would conclude that some gays may be genetic, but most are gay by choice.
Also, it should be pointed out that other studies on genetics and disease seem to indicate that even those with a certain gene linked to a disease, some do not get the disease due to other lifestyle factors. So even having the gene does not guarantee disease.
This would mean that even if someone had the “gay gene”, some could still choose not to be gay.
So u and i have a very slight logical disagreement that is amplified when u think about the social consequences
U still say ppl are gay by choice. But once again choice and being influenced by their environment are not the same thing. Lets say 1/4 of the homosexual phenotype (meaning internal homosexual desires not overt homosexual behavior) is influenced by genotype, while the other 3/4 is determined by environment/lifestyle.
Environmental and lifestyle influence can come in many flavors. Ive stated earlier that conditions in the womb and early childhood can heavily influence a child. The thing is that while these are part of the 3/4 environment lifestyle, the child has no choice in these matters
Similarly u can actively make choices that may lead to a phenotype but essentially are unrelated to it. For instance (and this is obviously meant to be an example) Lets say eating lots of ketchup had a causal relationship to developing a homosexual phenotype. U could actively be making a choice to eat ketchup but not actively making a choice to be homosexual. Thus u can “purposefully” choose to interact with ur environment in ways that may lead to the expression of a phenotype even though u are unaware of the consequences.
Finally id like to say that no I am not saying here that choice is not a factor… merely that saying 3/4 is influenced by lifestyle does not exclusively mean choice
choice may still be a factor…
though in my opinion i dont think choice plays much a role in the attraction to the opposite sex… only in whether or not u decide to engage in overt homosexual behavior
[/quote]
I agree with your assessment. I would just add that choice also applies to the outcome. In other words, environmental factors may have contributed to the gay attraction that were an unintentional outcome of the environment, but once that is played out, what is stopping the 3/4 from making a conscience choice to not act on those feeling?
Its always amazing when you disagree with someones point of view, you get accused of being a homo…i find it laughable how the liberal point of view always try to explain away bad and immoral behavior.
And yes being lesbian is immoral as well regardless of how much it turns me on…lol.
However, gay women also dont have a dick they put into a guys ass, so the disease factor is much less.
[quote]primalfear wrote:
Its always amazing when you disagree with someones point of view, you get accused of being a homo…i find it laughable how the liberal point of view always try to explain away bad and immoral behavior.
And yes being lesbian is immoral as well regardless of how much it turns me on…lol.
However, gay women also dont have a dick they put into a guys ass, so the disease factor is much less.[/quote]
If its so immoral, why dont you choose not to be turned on by it?
First off, I don’t believe gays should change unless they want to change. I also think that no gay would change by coercion anyway. But, what do you have against a gay, who wants to change, trying to change?
[/quote]
Because the problem isn’t them, the problem is the systemic homophobia in society.
Because I disagree with the foundation of their motives (deciding that they have the problem/wanting to fit in/etc), and I doubt the legitimacy of their “change”.
Yes, there are many bisexuals, yes there are many people who experiment and find that they were just curious and not actually gay.
If you’re concerned about the risk of gays spreading disease, why not support educating homosexuals about their increased risk and advocating safe sex among homosexuals? And if you’re of the “poisoning the well” theorists, why not advocate that homosexuals ONLY have homosexual sex, so that only the homosexual population is at the increased risk?
You said it well when you said, just now, that society would prefer that being gay was a choice. It reflects how biased all the information on it is.
By the way, how would “proving” that its a choice reduce any risks or negative outcomes? Other than, of course, giving society free reign to discriminate against homosexuals, thus “forcing” them to be straight?
From a biological standpoint homosexuality really makes no sense. Biologically we want/need to produce an offspring. You could try and prove bisexuality biologically but pure homosexuality really has no explanation unless outside factors are taking place.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
primalfear wrote:
Its always amazing when you disagree with someones point of view, you get accused of being a homo…i find it laughable how the liberal point of view always try to explain away bad and immoral behavior.
And yes being lesbian is immoral as well regardless of how much it turns me on…lol.
However, gay women also dont have a dick they put into a guys ass, so the disease factor is much less.
If its so immoral, why dont you choose not to be turned on by it?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
primalfear wrote:
Its always amazing when you disagree with someones point of view, you get accused of being a homo…i find it laughable how the liberal point of view always try to explain away bad and immoral behavior.
And yes being lesbian is immoral as well regardless of how much it turns me on…lol.
However, gay women also dont have a dick they put into a guys ass, so the disease factor is much less.
If its so immoral, why dont you choose not to be turned on by it?
You lose.[/quote]
That is a poor argument, naked women is what gets us turned on if your not somehow turned on by naked women then maybe you caught the ghey.
[quote]John S. wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
primalfear wrote:
Its always amazing when you disagree with someones point of view, you get accused of being a homo…i find it laughable how the liberal point of view always try to explain away bad and immoral behavior.
And yes being lesbian is immoral as well regardless of how much it turns me on…lol.
However, gay women also dont have a dick they put into a guys ass, so the disease factor is much less.
If its so immoral, why dont you choose not to be turned on by it?
You lose.
That is a poor argument, naked women is what gets us turned on if your not somehow turned on by naked women then maybe you caught the ghey.[/quote]
Exactly…so how do i lose by being turned on by 2 women and if you noticed i put an “lol” after it refering the humour but as the typical moron [that John was so nice to point out you are] makes little sense.
It’s not just the naked women though, it’s the fact that two or more naked women are together. These women are having sex together. This is not “natural”. Being turned on by this is “immoral” in your book of immorality.
So you are both guilty of being attracted to something that is “immoral”.
You lose.
By the way who wrote the book on immorality? You? If so, why is it ok to “kick someone to the curb”? Doesn’t sound to “moral” to me. I think you’re fucked up.
Also, let’s not forget the topic of men having anal sex with women. It keeps being ignored. Is sticking a dick in a woman’s ass immoral? Like I said, the FACT is, many, many, many men are into this. It easily spreads disease as well. Is it “immoral” if both people are consenting?
Common, give is your judgment. However you might have to question yourself, and you wouldn’t want that now would you? Keep the focus on others, not yourself, right?
[quote]primalfear wrote:
Its always amazing when you disagree with someones point of view, you get accused of being a homo…i find it laughable how the liberal point of view always try to explain away bad and immoral behavior.
And yes being lesbian is immoral as well regardless of how much it turns me on…lol.
However, gay women also dont have a dick they put into a guys ass, so the disease factor is much less.[/quote]
Yes, there are stupid gay men out there that don’t care or have enough self respect to pay attention to the risks of having gay sex. And that sucks for those of us out there who do care and are responsible when it comes to sex. The gay men I chose to be friends with are smart intelligent people that know about the risk factor. Most of my friends are very successful in life.
Some are firemen, police officers, peremedicts, etc… I don’t have aids. None of my friends have aids. Because we all have brains. Do all you straight people on here practice safe sex? Because you know that Aids is not only found in gay people. It’s also found in straight people.
So is it immoral for two gay disease free men to have safe sex behind closed doors? And if so why? How does that effect anyone else? Not to mention, I think people on this forum are so fixated on sex. For me, I am happy just sitting on the couch watchin a movie with my boyfriend. The gay lifestyle is not all about sex and spreading disease. Although, I’m sure there are some out there that are. And I chose not to associate myself with them.
Lorisco, this primalfear guy is a good example why gays may have more phsycological issues than straight people. He seems to be one of those guys that hate “fags” just to hate them.
[quote]BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
John S. and Primalfear(of homosexuals) -
It’s not just the naked women though, it’s the fact that two or more naked women are together. These women are having sex together. This is not “natural”. Being turned on by this is “immoral” in your book of immorality.
So you are both guilty of being attracted to something that is “immoral”.
You lose.
By the way who wrote the book on immorality? You? If so, why is it ok to “kick someone to the curb”? Doesn’t sound to “moral” to me. I think you’re fucked up.
Also, let’s not forget the topic of men having anal sex with women. It keeps being ignored. Is sticking a dick in a woman’s ass immoral? Like I said, the FACT is, many, many, many men are into this. It easily spreads disease as well. Is it “immoral” if both people are consenting?
Common, give is your judgment. However you might have to question yourself, and you wouldn’t want that now would you? Keep the focus on others, not yourself, right?[/quote]
Looks like I struck a cord with you huh? The fact is 2 naked women is going to attract us because guess what, unlike the gay guy I will turned on by chicks. The whole thing is if it feels good it has to be right is bullshit. I hear meth makes you feel fucking awesome that must be right too.
Who made what is moral and immoral, well infact you did, see there is this thing that you have called a conscience, and when you listen to it, it tends to tell you what’s right and wrong, but as anything over time environmental factors may come into play to change them, but I believe these are some that will not change for most people.
[quote]John S. wrote:
From a biological standpoint homosexuality really makes no sense. Biologically we want/need to produce an offspring. You could try and prove bisexuality biologically but pure homosexuality really has no explanation unless outside factors are taking place.[/quote]
Check out some of Orions posts earlier in the thread where he sites examples of sterile members of eusocial organism societies.
Also, let’s not forget the topic of men having anal sex with women. It keeps being ignored. … Like I said, the FACT is, many, many, many men are into this. It easily spreads disease as well.
…[/quote]
From a public health perspective this is inarguably true. The riskiness of sexual activity essentially rises from oral sex to vaginal sex to anal sex. The only reason “gay sex” is more likely to transmit disease than “heterosexual sex” is that a much larger percentage of the population that engages in gay sex is engaging in anal sex versus the population engaging in heterosexual sex.
ADDENDUM: That and the frequency of using condoms also plays a role. BTW, lesbians as a group have a lesser frequency of STDs than heterosexuals. So the relative frequencies go as you’d expect, given oral is less risky than vaginal, and vaginal is less risky than anal.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Looks like I struck a cord with you huh? The fact is 2 naked women is going to attract us because guess what, unlike the gay guy I will turned on by chicks. The whole thing is if it feels good it has to be right is bullshit. I hear meth makes you feel fucking awesome that must be right too.
Who made what is moral and immoral, well infact you did, see there is this thing that you have called a conscience, and when you listen to it, it tends to tell you what’s right and wrong, but as anything over time environmental factors may come into play to change them, but I believe these are some that will not change for most people.[/quote]
You “strike a cord with me” because someone I love has gone through fucking hell growing up because of people like you.
You being the fucked up person that you are and having read my posts on my brother shows that you are an antagonizing self righteous person who enjoys “striking cords” with others knowing full well the struggles they’ve faced.
Still not addressing men having anal with women huh?
My conscience tells me to not condemn gay people. Gay people don’t hurt me. My gay brother is an awesome guy. So please, don’t try to tell me I don’t have a conscience.
I’m a happily married man with a beautiful daughter and my gay brother doesn’t spread his “gayness” all over the place. He’s just a person. If you met him, you wouldn’t even know he’s gay. So what happened if you ended up being good friends with him only to find out that he’s gay. You would not be his friend anymore? If that’s the case, then you are truly a fucked up person.
This notion that you must be “against” gay people is bullshit.
What “immoral” acts do you perform? None of my business you say? Same goes for you, none of your fucking business what others do as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.
I have a reason to be passionate. Accept others as long as their actions aren’t hurting anyone. If two people want to do something that they both enjoy, who the fuck are you to tell them they are wrong?
[quote]John S. wrote:
BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
John S. and Primalfear(of homosexuals) -
It’s not just the naked women though, it’s the fact that two or more naked women are together. These women are having sex together. This is not “natural”. Being turned on by this is “immoral” in your book of immorality.
So you are both guilty of being attracted to something that is “immoral”.
You lose.
By the way who wrote the book on immorality? You? If so, why is it ok to “kick someone to the curb”? Doesn’t sound to “moral” to me. I think you’re fucked up.
Also, let’s not forget the topic of men having anal sex with women. It keeps being ignored. Is sticking a dick in a woman’s ass immoral? Like I said, the FACT is, many, many, many men are into this. It easily spreads disease as well. Is it “immoral” if both people are consenting?
Common, give is your judgment. However you might have to question yourself, and you wouldn’t want that now would you? Keep the focus on others, not yourself, right?
Looks like I struck a cord with you huh? The fact is 2 naked women is going to attract us because guess what, unlike the gay guy I will turned on by chicks. The whole thing is if it feels good it has to be right is bullshit. I hear meth makes you feel fucking awesome that must be right too.
Who made what is moral and immoral, well infact you did, see there is this thing that you have called a conscience, and when you listen to it, it tends to tell you what’s right and wrong, but as anything over time environmental factors may come into play to change them, but I believe these are some that will not change for most people.[/quote]
Bakistkneegrow made a really good point. In fact I agree with you, you did strike a cord with him. A cord that brought out some logic and intelligence behind his statements, unlike you.
So you say meth makes you feel fucking awesome but you chose not to do it because it is immoral. That’s a bad example. You admit that gay sex would make you feel fucking awesome. You just don’t do it because your conscience says it’s wrong.
Btw, Meth along with other street drugs ruin peoples lives. Crystal Meth is addicting and can ruin relationships. The addiction takes over your body and causes you to be chemically dependent. Being addicted to Meth is serious because once you’re addicted, you have strong cravings for it, and you begin to experience stomach pain, headaches, drowsiness, and depression if you DO NOT receive this drug. I have not experienced any of this from having sex with men.
I have a question for all you haters. I am a happy gay man, disease free, enjoying life to the best of my ability, drug free, do my best to treat others as I would like to be treated, I have lots of great friends, some in which happen to be gay as well as disease free, I pay my taxes, and I’m a law abiding citizen. Does this count for anything. Or am I an immoral person just because I have safe sex with another man.
[quote]primalfear wrote:
John S. wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
primalfear wrote:
Its always amazing when you disagree with someones point of view, you get accused of being a homo…i find it laughable how the liberal point of view always try to explain away bad and immoral behavior.
And yes being lesbian is immoral as well regardless of how much it turns me on…lol.
However, gay women also dont have a dick they put into a guys ass, so the disease factor is much less.
If its so immoral, why dont you choose not to be turned on by it?
You lose.
That is a poor argument, naked women is what gets us turned on if your not somehow turned on by naked women then maybe you caught the ghey.
Exactly…so how do i lose by being turned on by 2 women and if you noticed i put an “lol” after it refering the humour but as the typical moron [that John was so nice to point out you are] makes little sense.[/quote]
You lose because, despite the fact that you think its “immoral”, you cannot choose what turns you on. So, either (a)you cant choose what you’re attracted to, or (b)you have mental problems, by your own admission.
And, hey John, if two naked women were raping a 6 year old girl with a broom, would that turn you on? If two naked women were abusing an elderly person, would that be a turnon? How about if two naked women were doing anything else that is ACTUALLY immoral? So, suddenly, “Its immoral but its ok that I’m turned on by it because its naked women” philosophy kinda falls apart.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
KneeGrow, I’m sorry to say it but you’re probably wasting your time. You’re trying to logically argue against someone with an illogical fear.
The liberal lie is to frame this debate as if there is actually “fear” involved. Then if someone speaks out they are labeled as “homophobic”.
Very good Cap, but it’s old and not so many people are buying into this nonsense.
Nope, its fear. Get over it.
Oh I see, that sounds like a similar argument that you tried to use regarding the health problems that homosexuals regularly have. And that was also your answer to the many studies that I posted regarding “homosexuals” that have changed to heterosexual.
It didn’t make any sense then and it makes no sense now. You can continue to make noise while sticking your fingers in your ears, but what does it really mean?
Prove it’s fear, or simply stop using that tired old attack.
Look on the brightside, though. At least his hateful rants
More liberal, politically correct lies! Again, if anyone opposes the homosexual agenda they are hateful.
You’re making me laugh Cap.
hahahaha. The homosexual agenda. Sounds like you’re paranoid, Zeb. And arent paranoia and fear sort of similar? You lose.
I see, more name calling and still no proof to back up your tired old assertions.
I wonder why the left thinks that people are stupid?
I come up with evidence and you sit there and name call.
You’re still funny Cap!
Your entire argument is an insult to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
Boo hoo.
Hey, there’s a trend here. Almost finished with your post and you have not said even one significant thing.
-Not a shred of evidence to back up your argument.
You see Cap “boo hoo” just doesn’t make any sense, at least not in the adult world.
Let me know when you’re ready to answer the volumes of data which clearly indicate that many homosexuals who WANT to change are able to. You ducked that debate earlier in the thread, remember?
sigh You mean the “converted” christians who, after 17 years of being “cured” still have to pray to jeezus for the strength to resist other men?
Good job Cap, you’re 2 for 2 with the attack buz words.
You see everyone first they call you “afraid” of homosexuals. Then they immediately resort to the religious attack.
Ha ha.
No Cap, I never mentioned even one “religious study”. Sorry to disappoint you, but people do change. I don’t think it’s genetic.
[b]By the way, if it were genetic how come you decided at one point you wanted to have sex with guys? Were you born that way and then realized that you just didn’t like it, or did you just change?
Ha ha.[/b]
Please keep them coming I’m having a riot.
Oh, and here are the studies which you ducked earlier in the thread. Would you like to answer each of them right now? Hey, how about just answering 15 or 20 of them? You can begin by telling us all how those people really didn’t change. And how you know more about each persons life than they do.
Intellectual honesty is something that your side will never be accused of.
Here you go:
"(May 9, 2001). Press Release, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, Prominent Psychiatrist Announces New Study Results: “Some Gays can Change.” Available at
“Like most psychiatrists,” says Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, “I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that’s untrue–some people can and do change.”
Acosta, F., (1975) Etiology and treatment of homosexuality: review. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 4:9-29.
??better prospects for intervention in homosexual life and in its prevention through the early identification and treatment of the potential homosexual child.? (p. 9)
Aries, P. and A. Bejin, ed., Male Homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), 124-125.
Bieber, I., et al. (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. NY: Basic Books.
?The therapeutic results of our study provide reason for an optimistic outlook. Many homosexuals became exclusively heterosexual in psychoanalytic treatment. Although this change may be more easily accomplished by some than by others, in our judgment a heterosexual shift is a possibility for all homosexuals who are strongly motivated to change.? (p. 319)
Bieber, I., Bieber, T. (1979) Male homosexuality. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 24, 5:409-421.
?We have followed some patients for as long as 20 years who have remained exclusively heterosexual. Reversal estimates now range from 30% to an optimistic 50%.? (p.416)
Cappon, D., (1965) Toward an Understanding of Homosexuality. Englewoord Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Of patients with bisexual problems 90% were cured (i.e., no reversions to homosexual behavior, no consciousness of homosexual desire and fantasy) in males who terminated treatment by common consent. Male homosexual patients: 80% showed marked improvement (i.e., occasional relapses, release of aggression, increasingly dominant heterosexuality)? 50% changed.? (p. 265-268)
Clippinger, J., (1974) Homosexuality can be cured. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy. 21, 2:15-28.
?Of 785 patients treated, 307, or approximately 38%, were cured. Adding the percentage figures of the two other studies, we can say that at least 40% of the homosexuals were cured, and an additional 10 to 30% of the homosexuals were improved, depending on the particular study for which statistics were available.? (p. 22)
Fine, R., (1987) Psychoanalytic theory. (in Diamant L. Male and Female Homosexuality: Psychological Approaches. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing.) 81-95.
??a considerable percentage of overt homosexuals became heterosexual? If patients were motivated, whatever procedure is adopted a large percentage will give up their homosexuality? The misinformation that homosexuality is untreatable by psychotherapy does incalculable harm to thousands of men and women?? (p. 85-86)
Fitzgibbons, R., (1999) The origins and therapy of same-sex attraction disorder. (in Wolfe, C. Homosexuality and American Public Life. Spence) 85-97.
“The second most common cause of SSAD [same sex attraction disorder] among males is mistrust of women?s love? Male children in fatherless homes often feel overly responsible for their mothers. As they enter their adolescence, they may come to view female love as draining and exhausting.? (p. 89)
?Experience has taught me that healing is a difficult process, but through the mutual efforts of the therapist and the patient, serious emotional wounds can be healed over a period of time.? (p. 96)
Goetze, R. (1997) Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change: A Review of 17 Published Studies. Toronto Canada: New Directions for Life.
44 persons who were exclusively or predominantly homosexual experienced a full shift of sexual orientation.
Hatterer, L., (1970) Changing Homosexuality in the Male. NY: McGraw-Hill.
49 patients changed (20 married, of these 10 remained married, 2 divorced, 18 achieved heterosexual adjustments); 18 partially recovered, remained single; 76 remained homosexual (28 palliated ? 58 unchanged) ?A large undisclosed population has melted into heterosexual society, persons who behaved homosexually in late adolescence and early adulthood, and who, on their own, resolved their conflicts and abandoned such behavior to go on to successful marriages or to bisexual patterns of adoption.? (p. 14)
James, Elizabeth (1978) Treatment of Homosexuality: A Reanalysis and Synthesis of Outcome Studies (unpublished PhD dissertation, Brigham Young University, on file with Brigham Young University Library).
Elizabeth James meta-analyzed over 100 outcome studies published between 1930 and 1976, and concluded that when all the research was combines, 35% of homosexual clients “recovered” and 27% improved.
Kaye, H., Beri, S., Clare, J., Eleston, M., Gershwin, B., Gershwin, P., Kogan, L., Torda, C., Wilber, C. (1967) Homosexuality in Women. Archives of General Psychiatry. 17:626-634.
??optimism in the psychoanalytic treatment of homosexual women. ?at least a 50% probability of significant improvement in women with this syndrome who present themselves for treatment and remain in it.? (p. 634)
Kronemeyer, R. (1980) Overcoming Homosexuality. NY: Macmillian
?For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy it is ?curable?.? (p.7)
MacIntosh, H. (1994) Attitudes and experiences of psychoanalysts. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 42, 4: 1183-1207.
824 male patients of 213 analysts ? 197 (23.9%) changed to heterosexuality, 703 received significant therapeutic benefit; and of the 391 female patients of 153 analysts ? 79 (20.2%) changed to heterosexuality, 318 received significant therapeutic benefit. (p. 1183)
MacIntosh, H. (1995) Attitudes and Experiences of Psychoanalysts in Analyzing Homosexual Patients. Journal of the American Psychiatric Association 1183.
422 psychiatrists were asked if they had successfully treated homosexuals, and did they agree that a homosexual can be changed to heterosexual. Of the 285 responses, which involved 1,215 homosexuals, the survey stated that 23% changed to heterosexuality. 84% benefited significantly by reducing their attraction to other members of the same gender, with a decrease in homosexual activity.
Marmor, J. (1975) Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation Disturbances. (In Freedman, A., Kaplan, H., Sadock, B. Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry: II, Second Edition. Baltimore MD: Williams & Wilkins)
?This conviction of untreatability also serves an ego-defensive purpose for many homosexuals. ?however, there has evolved a greater therapeutic optimism about the possibilities for change? There is little doubt that a genuine shift in preferential sex object choice can and does take place in somewhere between 20 and 50 per cent of patients with homosexual behavior who seek psychotherapy with this end in mind.? (p. 1519)
Newman, L., (1976) Treatment for the parents of feminine boys. American Journal of Psychiatry. 133, 6: 683-687.
?Experiences of being ostracized and ridiculed may play a more important role than has been recognized in the total abandonment of the male role at a later time.? (p. 687)
?Feminine boys, unlike men with postpubertal gender identity disorders seem remarkably responsive to treatment.? (p. 684)
Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A., Potts, R. (1998) Towards the Ethical and Effective Treatment of Homosexuality. Encino CA: NARTH.
Nicolosi surveyed 850 individuals and 200 therapists and counselors ? specifically seeking out individuals who claim to have made a degree of change in sexual orientation. Before counseling or therapy, 68% of respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22% stating they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment only 13% perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entire homosexuality, while 33% described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual, 99% of respondents said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable.
Pattison, E.M., Pattison, M.L. (1980, December) ?Ex-Gays?: Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals. American Journal of Psychiatry. 137 (12): 1553-1562.
Authors evaluated 11 white men who claimed to have changed sexual orientation from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality. Corollary evidence suggests that the phenomenon of substantiated change in sexual orientation without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy may be much more common than previously thought.
Rekers, J. (1988) The formation of homosexual orientation. (In Fagan, P. Hope for Homosexuality. Washington DC: Free Congress Foundation.)
?With major research grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, I have experimentally demonstrated an affective treatment for ‘gender identity disorder of childhood’, which appears to hold potential for preventing homosexual orientation in males.?
Satinover, J., (1996) Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids MI: Baker.
These reports contradict claims that change is impossible. It would be more accurate to say that all the existing evidence suggests strongly that homosexuality is quite changeable.
?Each individual?s homosexuality is the likely result of a complex mixture of genetic, intrauterine, and extrauterine biological factors combined with familial and social factors as well as repeatedly reinforced choices.? (p. 245)
“A study conducted by a homosexual couple found that out of 156 same-sex couples ‘only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. The authors noted that the expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals.’”
Schwartz, M.F., Masters, W.H. (1984, February). The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. American Journal of Psychiatry. 141 (2): 173-181.
?Certain individuals who want to change their homosexual preference can be helped by a short-term intensive intervention. The failure rate in helping dissatisfied homosexuals establish heterosexual lifestyles after the intensive phase of the intervention was 20.9%, and after 5 years? follow-up it was 28.4%.
Spitzer, Robert (May 2001) Psychiatry and Homosexuality, Wall St. Journal, A26.
“In the sample he studied, Spitzer concluded that many (homosexuals) made substantial changes (after gender affirmative therapy) in sexual arousal and fantasy–not merely behavior. Even subjects who made less substantial change believed it to be extremely beneficial.”
Throckmorton, W. (1996) Efforts to modify sexual orientation: A review of outcome literature and ethical issues. Journal of Mental Health and Counseling. 20, 4: 283-305.
?I submit that the case against conversion therapy requires opponents to demonstrate that no patients have benefited from such procedures or that any benefits are too costly in some objective way to be pursued even if they work. The available evidence supports the observation of many counselors ? that many individuals with same-gender sexual orientation have been able to change through a variety of counseling approaches.? (p. 287)
West, D. (1977) Homosexuality Re-examined. London Duckworth
Behavioral techniques have the best document success (never less than 30%); psychoanalysis claims a great deal of success (the average rate seemed to be about 5%, but 50% of the bisexuals achieved exclusive heterosexuality.)
Zucker, K., Bradley, S. (1995) Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents. NY: Guilford. ??we feel that parental tolerance of cross-gender behavior at the time of its emergence is instrumental in allowing the behavior to develop?? (p. 259)
??In general we concur with those (e.g. Green 1972; Newman 1976; Stoller, 1978) who believe that the earlier treatment begins, the better.? (p. 281) ?It has been our experience that a sizable number of children and their families can achieve a great deal of change. In these cases, the gender identity disorder resolves fully, and nothing in the children?s behavior or fantasy suggests that gender identity issues remain problematic? All things considered, however, we take the position that in such cases clinicians should be optimistic, not nihilistic, about the possibility of helping the children to become more secure in their gender identity.? (p. 282)”
[b]Please read these studies and point out to me why you think that the authors are indeed lying.
If you can’t do this save the standard liberal “crap speak” for some gullible kids because no one is buying on this thread![/b]
I think the authors are lying because of a biased approach to the study resulting in questionable results.[/quote]
Every one of the authors is lying? Every single one?
Come on Cap, you don’t even believe that. Could it be that the big “born that way” lie is wrong? Yes, in fact it is.
I’m not sure you’re unbiased enough to have this conversation. Do most people who have a serious problem spontaneously change, or do they get help?
Think!
Of course you do, you have no answer for the volumes of studies above so you question my motives for bringing them up.
The liberals will always dodge the direct evidence and try to replace it with a slanderous attack. They have no real answer, and you Cap prove this time and again on this thread.
No one is positive as to how someone becomes “bisexual” (is there a bisexual gene too? Ha ha) or “homosexual” but it’s looking better and better that it’s NOT genetic. [b] On this thread for example, you have no answers for how the many people have changed in the studies above. All you can do is say “nu uh they’re lying, it’s just not true, it can’t be true.”
And that, you see, is no answer at all![/b]
And if it’s NOT genetic then the big “born that way” lie that you and your ilk have been claiming needs to stop.
No, what interests me is that 20% to 30% of all those who go through therapy actually change. And what also interests me is that I think that the rate of change would be even higher had there not been the “born that way” lie perpetuated by the liberals, the media and many Univeristities.
And finally what really interests me is the many 20 somethings that buy into this LIE because that’s all they’ve ever been told. So, if I’m able to change even one mind on this forum, then my time is well spent.