Homosexuality, Choice or Genetic

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I know that somehow, you want to be accepting of your brother. That’s the moral chant of our day…be accepting of anyone and anything.

If your brother was being ‘friendly’ with a 12 year old boy, would you be accepting? You’re willing to accept his lifestyle. Why not that? I’m sure someday the libs will try to get us all accepting pedophilia, like how its now PC to accept homosexual perverts.

What if your brother was hetero and had 10 kids with 10 different women. Would you happily smile and accept his ‘lifestyle choices’.

You’ve been brainwashed by the PC Police/Big Brother. Time to question your premises.

I love my 2 1/2 year old daughter and wife more than anything in the world. I HATE PEDOPHILES. I look at my little girl sometimes and just want to cry because of how amazing and precious she is to me. If someone ever did something to my daughter, I would kill them. You are not more of a man than me or my brother. My brother loves my daughter too and would kill for her.

I have read some of your other threads Headhunter, and have the same opinion/beliefs on many other topics. I used to think like you in terms of gay people as well. I never hated them, but thought they somehow affected me. Well, it happened to me, I have a gay brother, never thought it could ever happen to me but it did. My point of view changed because I’ve seen his struggles, I’ve heard his cries and know how much pain he’s been through. My brother is thankful that I’m not gay because he would never want me to go through what he’s been through growing up and now. Whatever though, sit there and tell me that he’s “sick”, he’s a pervert, he’s fucked up, he’s a piece of shit. Until you deal with it in your own family, you have no fucking idea. I’m not “brainwashed”.

Zeb likes to talk about “strawman” arguments a lot on this thread. Well I feel I get a strawman argument thrown at me because no matter what I say, I’M A TWISTED LIBERAL PERVERT BECAUSE I ACCEPT MY BROTHER. No matter how many times I say, my brother isn’t hurting anyone, my brother is a good person, my brother is a good uncle to my daughter, my brother isn’t spreading disease, you will all say: What if he was a pedophile, what if he was a murderer, what if he had 10 kids with 10 different women? THERE IS NO “IF”. NO FUCKING “IF”. He is none of those things, period. Is everyone shocked that a man who hates pedophiles and hates murderers and hates rapists, could accept a gay family member? Is it shocking? Why?

For the hunderedth time, my brother is not a pedophile. My brother is not spreading disease. My brother is doing something with another consenting adult. Can you grasp that, OR WILL YOU CONTINUE TO THINK I’M SOME LIBERAL MANIAC WHO WILL ACCEPT ANYTHING BECAUSE I ACCEPT MY BROTHER? Do you understand? He’s just a regular guy who is attracted to men, that’s it. Go ahead and say whatever the fuck you want about AIDS, STD’s, mental problems, unhappiness, whatever the fuck you want. IT DOESN’T RELATE TO ME OR MY GAY BROTHER. I KNOW YOU WON’T GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SCULLS THOUGH (brainwashed).

Comparing gay people to pedophilia is FUCKING STUPID. Kids don’t have a choice. Consenting gay adults do. They have NOTHING to do with one another. And if a gay guy is attracted to a kid, then he is a pedophile as well as a gay guy.

I am done with this fucking thread, people hear what they want. I’m not brainwashed, I love my brother and my family. AND MY BROTHER IS NOT HURTING ANYONE.

So hate gay people! As long as you aren’t hurting anyone or killing gay people to each his own.

I just wish some people could understand where I’m coming from. Unless you’ve felt and seen what I have dealing with my brother, you won’t get it. That’s fine, but I ain’t no twisted liberal pedophile accepting freak.

Good bye and take care.

[/quote]

Its frustrating, believe me, I know.

But these idiots are beyond reason, beyond rational thinking, beyond reach. They hide behind ambigotry (ex. post any statistics they can find that put homosexuals in a negative light, compare homosexuality to rape, pedophilia, murder, and alcholism, advocate homosexuals getting therapy to make them straight… but since they don’t type the words “I am against homosexuality”, stand firm in their resolution that “I NEVER SAID I’M AGAINST IT!!”), they name call (liberalliberalliberal), they insist they rely on “facts”, no matter how many times they are debunked… in other words, its really a useless battle trying to get through to them.

I really wish you and your brother the best. Take care.

[ZEB]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I have no idea if it’s a choice or genetic.[/quote]

Then you should be very upset with the powerful homosexual organizations (GLADD and many others) who constantly spread the “born that way” lie. You see, by doing this they convince those who are NOT happy with their same sex attraction that therapy will not work. And therapy has been proven to work for many. There is zero proof that homosexuality is in fact caused by a genetic condition.

But as it doesn’t hurt anyone,

Having a same sex attraction hurts no one, I agree. But, you cannot argue with the facts as presented by the governments own CDC. And those facts are startling! The homosexual lifestyle as we know it, harms many. There is no group which has a higher STD rate, higher depression, anxiety and suicide rates (and it’s not because of acceptance as they suffer from the same mental problems in countries where it is accepted). And of course there is no single group that has a higher HIV positive rate. I posted the statistics at least three times on this thread. They are not fabricated in any way. I only ask those who travel down that risky road to be very careful and have consideration for others.

I believe we need to allow it.

This debate is not about, and has never been about “allowing” homosexuality. This is America, one can chose to live any way they’d like with in the law.

[ZEB]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

A note to HH: Your use of the slippery slop argument is hilarious,[/quote]

Not so fast Beowolf.

The funny thing about the slippery slope theory is that it’s correct! Even with something like guns that I very much approve of. Have you ever heard of anyone selling all of their guns and going back to not owning one once that they’ve decided to be a gun owner? No, in fact it’s quite the opposite. When I decided to become a gun owner over 20 years ago I bought one gun. To date I own seven guns!

Not so strange it’s the natural order of things.

Things usually don’t reverse themselves, they move forward, to the next things in most cases that is.

In parts of the world where homosexuals have had the right to marry (or civil unions have taken place) for a while, other “off beat” groups are demanding the same rights.

Now I hate to confuse this debate with more facts. I know how certain liberals (like Cap) hate to have facts brought into the debate, but you seem like a rational person so here you go:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/421

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

[makkun]

ZEB,

[quote]ZEB wrote:
[…]
No, I wanted people to discuss the CONTENT. All you did was attack a few of the sources. Your argument that the sources are no good is false. First of all as I said you’ve only looked at about one third of the sources. And secondly, because those sources are from people whom you don’t like doesn’t mean that they’re wrong.[/quote]

I didn’t say much about the sources in those lists - some will have some validity. Most what I read about for example Spitzer’s work on this issue - seems to be methodologically problematic. I did however criticise the way you presented them - without referencing, and omitting the fact that you had taken them from religious activist sites without clarifying that bias. That’s just bad academic style.

I assume you don’t like George Bush, but if he said that today is Monday in the continental US it doesn’t mean it’s not Monday simply because you don’t like who said it. There are some sources which have been quoted in this argument from the left (not in this thread) which I don’t like but have to admit that they’re factually correct.

I don’t really know what to write here.

[quote]One more thing:

I don’t wear panties, that must be someone on your side you’re thinking of. [/quote]

[quote]You know you have not changed one bit from a few years ago when we did this. You like to get caught up in who did what instead of is it the truth.

I guess that’s the way most liberals dodge the truth.[/quote]

No, that’s an attempt to apply some standards here to how sources and arguments are treated. I can’t talk very much about ‘the truth’ - I can criticise an argument though when it’s inconsistent. That has more to do with my academic background - when arguing and using sources, disclose the source and your bias. That tends to help following up on the ‘the truth’, rather than dodge it.

This is a message board that we’re writing on is it not? If you’d like me to do a doctoral thesis on the topic I probably could. But then guys like you and Cap (okay just Cap) would do the “homophobe” and name calling dance of the seven liberals anyway. So really what’s your point? I don’t think it’s about sources because there are many, many credible sources who claim that “homosexuality” is NOT genetic. And there are many more sources which also have good evidence that people who go through therapy do in fact change. But none of that really matters to you or your liberal pals. What matters is that people not rock the politically correct boat. The facts be dammed full speed ahead. Nothing has changed, ho hum.

See, here I don’t agree: this is very much about the sources. As I wrote before, I did try to find full text versions of the listings you gave me - and I did end up on a lot of very activist sites; funnily enough, never did I end up on a) a university b) a large recognised professional body (and NARTH is no such thing) c) a state agency. I did question whether you had read anything more than the digests you posted - and given the fact that I wasn’t able to find anything, I’m still not convinced you have. If you disclose that, that’ll be fine - but if not, your argument is just what it seems to everyone here except you and lorisco: prepared listings from religious activists sites with no connections to proper scientific organisations. If you wielded the religious argument - as you have done before - that would be fine; calling it science - for that it’s just not enough. No wonder that people don’t believe your ‘facts’ - their sources are questionable. Again - that’s not a political argument - it’s a methodological one.[quote]

READ THIS and tell me what the prominent doctors got out of stating it, if it were not true. They are going against the tide and not making any friends in the world of the politically correct.

[…]
[…]

“To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost-a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences.”[/quote]

Besides this again being from an obviously biased (again undisclosed) source - The Traditional Values Coalition: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php , let’s get into the argument for a minute: The APA was indeed the target of a lobbying campaign, and - gosh - the gays had a mailing list! That’s standard PR and lobbying practice. The APA members still had a free vote and they used it; and they haven’t changed in 35 years, they even have reclassified homosexuality even further, confirming their original decision. Moreover, mental (and other) health organisations worldwide have followed this example - arguing with scientific arguments. That’s why many of the source on your list are up 40 years old and a PubMed search (I posted something for BlackIstKneeGrow earlier) are new and don’t mention outdated stuff. Hell, even the WikiPedia entry on the DSM points out to the scientific argument.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Wikipedia

Sorry, but I don’t buy JLesk’s and JTF’s conspiracy theories - neither do I this one.

[quote][…]

You’re going to have to keep the arguments “straight”. I never once quoted the CDC in an attempt to prove that homosexuals could change.

You got confused. That’s easy to do on this topic as it takes quite a few twists and turns.

I quoted the CDC site exclusively to point out the dangers of the lifestyle, depression, anxiety, suicide rate, the many STD’s which are contracted etc.[/quote]

I’m aware of that - but that just points out to the selectivity (and weakness) of your argument. If you use the CDC to support your general argument, you accept it as a valid source. I’m glad that we agree on that - because this is pretty much the only scientifically credible source you use. Of course, the CDC points out to the dangers facing the MSM population (not only gays but also men on the ‘down low’ - who have same sex contacts, but don’t define themselves as gay) - and that is fine with pretty much everyone here, as there are undoubted risks facing MSM.

But - if you use those, you will have to accept the conclusions the CDC comes to: and never ever anywhere do they support a causal relationship between being gay and those dangers. They explicitly point out that homophobia is rather to blame than homosexuality as factor for the spread of STDs and HIV; and that reparative therapy doesn’t work, otherwise they would recommend it. But they don’t. Guess why not - because they follow the science in the field, and that just doesn’t support the ex gay movement.

I hope that you’re not going to say that the CDC is a right wing site. You’re not going to say that are you? No, you won’t, you’re more reasonable than that. It’s Cap’s job to play the raving lunatic liberal on this thread. I’ll wait for him to say that the CDC is a right wing religious organization. He won’t disappoint me either, hasn’t yet.

Now you’ve brought that left-right dichotomy up more than once in your answer, and I cannot but comment on it: I find a bit troublesome that you don’t seem to be able to look at the arguments without attaching them to some kind of agenda. True, there is no such thing as an unbiased source - that’s why in academia you have to disclose as much about them as possible. I’m pretty sure there are have crazy gay activists who are biased and distort facts to support their agenda - but quoting crazy anti-gay activists doesn’t help disprove them. That’s why you will not find me quoting from gay.com, or some such; and that’s why I’m so focused on the background of the sources, and see undisclosed bias as a problem. I wish you did the same.[quote]

makkun wrote:
PS: Oh - and for the argument that if people wish to be therapied for something that they don’t need to be therapied for (like homosexuality): no problem, people have always liked quackery, and there will always be a market for it.

ZEB wrote:
And that’s the very attitude which prevents those who are NOT happy with a same sex attraction from trying to seek therapy. The left is threatened by this as they have perpetuated the big “born that way” LIE.[/quote]

No one keeps them from seeking ‘therapy’ - but as the current scientific standard finds reparative ‘therapy’ unethical and unproven, they will have to live with criticism. That’s science.

Now why don’t you give me some proof that homosexuals are “born that way” You’ve probably said it enough times, so back it up right here on T-Nation, I’d love to read it. There is no more “quackery” than that found on the left. They want the truth to be what is politically correct and it just isn’t so.

No, I haven’t, because I have no fucking clue whether they are ‘born that way’. What I do know is that homosexual behaviour has long been cleared from being a disease or unhealthy by the scientific bodies dealing it; also, that sexual orientation is relatively set and only some behaviour on a bisexual scale can be affected - therapy not needed, and all methods questionable so far. That’s good enough for me.

In the larger context, I very much wish that it isn’t genetic, as if it is, some crazy people will start aborting fetuses when they start testing ‘gay’ some day in the future.

One more thing, it it’s not nature then it has to be nurture. And if it’s nurture then that’s probably the reason why a good many who used to call themselves “homosexual” have changed.

Nope - it can very well be pre-natal, without being genetic. Most scientific literature seems to indicate a combination of biological and psychological factors. Who knows - I don’t, neither do you. Therefore, you can’t call the opposite of your argument a lie - as you don’t have the science to support it either. And changing sexual behaviour in strongly motivated groups is not proof of an orientation change (and then self-reporting over the phone as in Spitzer’s ‘landmark study’: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14567650 ). People can achieve the most amazing things - and twist their personalities in the process. And that’s why the mental health bodies are so wary of these ‘therapies’.[quote]

Think about that makkun, you’re a smart guy.[/quote]

I did - that’s why I’m so nitpickish about so many of your sources and arguments.

Makkun

[makkun]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[…]

Now I hate to confuse this debate with more facts. I know how certain liberals (like Cap) hate to have facts brought into the debate, but you seem like a rational person so here you go:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...06/494pqobc.asp

[/quote]

With this story (from a conservative blog) widely corrected by now, the ‘samenlevingscontract’ or ‘cohabitation contract’ in Dutch law has nothing to do with a civil union or even marriage - that’s why some many unmarried couples use them. It is a civil contract which helps people who live together regulate their legal affairs. Ever bought a house with a friend? My grandmother and grand-aunt lived together until they were in their Nineties - it’s for stuff like that. It cannot be annulled, because legally there is nothing to be annulled.

Common Core and Better Law in European Family Law

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

Makkun

[Beowolf]

You know there is a reason the slippery slope isn’t allowed in true debate you know.

Just because B happens after A does not mean A causes B.

As well, we now allow interracial marriages, and so far, we don’t seem to allow murder now do we?

Just in case you didn’t see what I did there, interracial marriage and murder are about as analogous as pedophilia and homosexuality.

[Beowolf]

Almost forgot!

Just because some groups will begin to demand said rights, doesn’t mean they’ll get them.

But hey, women only wanted the right to vote because black men got it. Should we have nipped that in the bud too? What about all those illegal aliens demanding the right to vote (are their any)? We’re obviously gonna cave there, cause, ya know, we gave it to women. And after that, we’ll have to let people in France vote for the American President, we effect the world you know!

Do you see here, why slippery slope is a BS argument?

Watch again:

“You lift weights and you have learned about steroids, therefore you will use steroids during your lifetime.”

“You yelled at your child, therefore you will beat your child if we do not take them away from you immediately.”

“If we stop retarded nine year olds from owning automatic weapons, we may as well burn the second amendment off the Constitution and disband the military.”

I could go on and on…

[CappedAndPlanIt]

Indeed, Beowolf, you could go on and on. And Makkun can go on and on with pointing out the reasons all of Zebs “facts” are highly questionable at best, and bullshit at most.

But it doesn’t make a difference, really. Those against homosexuality aren’t here to have any kind of actual debate; you debunk the slippery slope, they change to the “increased risk of STDs” argument, you debunk the idea that homosexuality itself is the cause of the increased risk, they scurry away to the “unnatural” argument (while calling you a liberal with an agenda…or better yet, insinuating that you’re gay in order to insult you while claiming not to be a bigot), and you debunk the “unnatual” argument and point out that nowhere else do they consider unnatural to mean immoral, so they point out that gays dont procreate, and you point out that nowhere else do they consider nonprocreative to mean immoral…

to which they reply with the slippery slope argument.

It doesnt matter that every argument against it falls flat, they’ve started with the decision that homosexuality is wrong, and they’ll ignore everything that does not support that decision.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

What is Reparative Therapy?
Jeffry G. Ford

It is neither! The term “reparative therapy” seems to be a catch-all phrase for therapy
intended to heal or prevent homosexuality. Its roots stem back to the work of a British
theologian and self proclaimed psychologist, Elizabeth Moberly. Moberly wrote a couple
of books in the early 1980’s that the early “ex-gay” movement found very intriguing. By
far the most readable but not the easiest book was titled Homosexuality: A New
Christian Ethic. Her “research” involved no subjects! She simply did an extensive
literature review of the outdated works of: Irving Bieber, Lawrence Hatterer, and
Sigmond Freud and came up with a relatively minor reinterpretation of their findings.
Moberly, a proponent of psychoanalytic and psychodynamic theories, moved away from
Freud’s emphasis on the “domineering mother” and focused on the effect of the “passive”
or “distant” father. Moberly determined, by her reinterpretation, that the homosexual men
in the studies were suffering from what she termed “defensive detachment” and “same sex
ambivalence”. The theory presumes that the young boy, for any of a variety of reasons,
did not bond with his father in a meaningful way. Thus, the term “reparative” came into
play. It is interesting to note that there is almost no attention paid to lesbianism or
bisexuality in the literature put out by proponents of “reparative therapy”.
Moberly saw homosexuality as a “reparative drive” to meet the heretofore unmet needs of
the child for love and bonding and thus “identification” with males. The theory continues
to assume that the male child “defensively detaches” from relationships with boys out of
self protection, not wanting to experience another rejection. An attitude of false
superiority develops and the homosexual male portrays himself as “better than” the boys.
The assumption is the boy, in actuality, is feeling estranged and left out or left behind. At
puberty, when the hormones start raging, the adolescent mistakenly identifies this longing
for love and acceptance and sexualizes it.
It is assumed by reparative therapy proponents that the perceived “promiscuity” of gay
men is fueled by a longing to find self acceptance and self identification as a “real man”.
Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, in her now out of print book, Homosexuality: A Symbolic
Confusion went as far as to liken this “drive” to cannibalism. Cannibals, it is reported, eat
only people they admire, hoping to take in the good traits of the deceased. The inference
is that gay males are trying to “eat” or “consume” the perceived masculinity in their
sexual partners. Thus, reparative therapy proponents attempt to help gay men find same
sex love and bonding without eroticizing it. The theory, unsubstantiated, is that as the
unmet love needs are met in “legitimate” ways, heterosexuality will emerge.
I liked Elizabeth Moberly. I was instrumental in bringing her over to the US to do
conferences in Minneapolis and Seattle. She stayed with my wife and me. I learned that
my good natured teasing helped this shy, reserved woman to open up and allow her
vulnerability and humanness to emerge. Very much an academic, she read her
presentations word for word during an entire weekend long conference. She sounded
intellectual and made quite a convincing case for “reparative therapy”. When asked how
many clients she had treated, she admitted she had seen none. When asked about her
“research” she honestly reported she had done no new research. Elizabeth was a
philosopher more than a psychologist. Her challenge at the time was for “ex-gay”
ministries to take her unsupported theory and implement it. And implement it we did!
Ex-gay leaders across the country flocked to hear her message. To us, it was new and
refreshing; it took the emphasis off “sinful choices” and gave us some sort of explanation
for how we came to be homosexual. Additionally, it seemed to offer a new ray of hope.
To its credit, it took the emphasis off repression and sublimation and actually encouraged
gay men to attempt to meet their “legitimate” needs for same sex love but always in
“nonerotic” ways.
So called professionals like Joseph Nicolosi and Charles Socoriades picked up the ball and
ran with it. They started NARTH, the National Association for Recovery and Treatment
of Homosexuality. They are prolific writers who have self published many official
sounding “research” papers on recovery from homosexuality. What they have failed to
substantiate is any reliable data to support the theory. Everything remains anecdotal,
based on the self report of people like me who had everything to lose and nothing to gain
by admitting they have not been “cured”.
There are no studies in peer reviewed scientific journals that support the use of
reparative therapies or attempts of any kind to cure homosexuality.
Many reasonable people ask “What’s the big deal, if it makes some people feel better and
they believe in it?” This is a fair question. In fact, for many years after I left the “ex-gay”
movement, I held a “live and let live” philosophy about it. In my own experience, most of
the people who started trying to “go straight” ended up coming out and accepting
themselves in the long run. The people I met were, for the most part, genuine and caring
and not heavy handed with guilt and shame. Many evangelical Christians, take a gaint step
in admitting they have homosexual feelings and seeking “help”. To come out and risk the
loss of love and respect from their entire system of support is, for many, beyond
comprehension. Yet doing so appears to provide a middle ground where gay Christians
can meet each other. As they genuinely “seek the truth”, they eventually find the
“ex-gay” movement to be a stepping stone to full self acceptance as evidenced by the huge
number of “ex-ex-gays” we are seeing come forward.
I decided now, after almost 15 years, to speak out forcefully about the “ex-gay” movement
because there is a new and much more dangerous threat on the horizon. Huge organizations
with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend have slowly started to “adopt” the “ex-gay” cause. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council and D. James Kennedy’s
Coral Ridge ministries are the most visible. Homosexuality has been a “hot button” for many
on the religious and political right since the founding of Jerry Falwell’s now defunked
Moral Majority in the 1980’s… What has changed however, is that old tactics for pressing that
button no longer work.
Falwell and Swaggert and others of their ilk used to send out letters filled with ridiculous
statements about homosexuals as “pedophiles” and “predators”. They played on people’s
ignorance and fear. Using a parent’s love and instinct to protect, they stirred up massive
fear and repulsion by presenting false and distorted pictures of gay life in America. Out
of this fear sprang millions of dollars in revenue for the religious and political right. But,
thanks to the courage millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered individuals who
have come out of the closet, these ridiculous stereotypes have been shattered. Now,
statements like “God hates fags” are more likely to engender support and compassion for
the GLBT community, even from those on the far right. Too many people are now
acquainted with their gay neighbors, workmates or family members to accept the
“perverts” and “predators” lies.
A new “kinder and gentler” money making campaign of hate and intolerance is being
launched. Using the unsubstantiated claims of the sincere but misguided “ex-gays”,
megalithic organizations are trying to deny basic human rights protection to gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgendered people. They are attempting to accomplish this by presenting
homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle, one which “many” are choosing to leave. By reducing
sexual orientation to a “choice”, they are trying to build a case against gay rights, domestic
partnership benefits and hate crimes legislation. Their twisted logic assumes that if people
want to be “normal” and “fit it” they can. If they “choose” to run wild and deviate they
should not be afforded “special privileges”. After all, smokers and drinkers are not
afforded any special privileges, they have to accept responsibility for their choices and pay
the piper if it doesn’t work out. Why should it be any different for gays?
The “ex-gay” message was originally intended for Christians within the church. Now with
big money backers, advocates are taking these “claims” of healing and change out into the
world and in a big way. They have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars buying full
page adds in major newspapers across the country. They have produced television
commercials. Recently James Dobson has started a road show. His “Love Won Out”
conference is touring the country, drawing hundreds upon hundreds of people in to hear
about ways to “respond to misinformation in the public school system, change public
opinion and much more”. Once again he is capitalizing on the concerns of parents for
youth at risk. Dobson’s seminar is cleverly crafted using high quality handouts, great
media presentations, emotionally stirring testimonies and piles of official looking “studies”
by authors with MD and Ph.D. behind their names.
The time for thinking that the ex-gay movement is benign is long past. There are huge
political wars being launched. John Paulk and his ex-lesbian wife Ann, the poster
children for the movement, are loving the media hype and attention. While in Chicago
protesting the American Psychological Associations refusal to debate the merits of
reparative therapy, they had their 4 year old son carrying a sign that read, “I love my
ex-gay parents”. Paulk has no credentials to support his title of “homosexuality and
gender specialist” for Focus on the Family’s public policy division. He is deemed a
“specialist” simply because he claims to be healed.
It is the goal of the new “ex-gay movement” to influence public opinion, to spread their
misinformation throughout the school system and to raise just enough doubt to sway
legislators away from supporting equal rights, domestic partnership and hate crimes
legislation. I know I am repeating myself but I want to drive the point home. This is a
serious situation. Unless school board members, administrators and lawmakers are
equipped with accurate information presented scientifically, they are very likely to be
taken in by the pseudo science of reparative therapy. It is my hope that each person
reading this will download and copy the fact sheets and supporting information and get it
into the hands of policy makers.
Reparative therapy will appear to make sense and sound reasonable to people who don’t
challenge the initial assumption that homosexuality is a disease or a complex. Failure to
challenge that assumption is the crux of the matter. If we were to start with a premise
that heterosexuality is maladaptive, we could build elaborate theories that support our
faulty presuppositions. How difficult would it be to make a case for a heterosexual
pathology based on a theory that presupposes heterosexual men had insufficient bonding
with their mothers? The adolescent dating and lifelong attraction to women would be
symbolic of the male’s lifelong quest to get back to his mother’s breast and receive the
nurturing and love he never received. It seems so obviously ridiculous; however, if
centuries of ignorance and prejudice had embedded the notion that a male’s attraction to a
female was sick or immoral, we’d probably latch onto the theory. It would be easier to
look for ways to support what we’ve always believed than to challenge ourselves and face
the possibility that we may have been wrong.
It is not easy to admit that in the name of tradition or morality, we may have caused
irreparable damage to generations of people. People went to incredible lengths defending
their belief in a flat earth. How many wars, how many crusades and holocausts have there
been in the name of truth? A simple look at history reminds us what a deadly combination
religion mixed with unchallenged ideology can be.
It is critical to bring the debate about the place of reparative therapy in our schools back
to the initial presuppositions. Why do we assume that sexual diversity is pathological?
Why would we entertain inviting prejudice and bigotry to the table? If every major
scientific association has gone on record against the sorcery of reparative therapy, why do
we feel compelled to give it “equal time”? Neo-Nazi’s are not invited in to share their
“science” of white male supremacy in biology classes. It is time to step up to the plate
not only with compelling scientific data but with a resounding “NO” to the continued
acceptance and tolerance of homophobia. It can no longer be okay to hear “fag jokes” at
the local comedy club. It can no longer be acceptable for children to use the phrase
“you’re so gay” in the halls and playgrounds of our schools. We are created equal and
have inalienable rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. We must not be willing
to let the “powers that be” debate the merits of our existence by tolerating the
proliferation of a political agenda disguised as science. We must become the voice. We
must set a new standard. We must STEP UP!

Free Website Building Software | Create a Website - Homestead

About the author:

Jeffry G. Ford, MA, Licensed Psychologist is a 1983 graduate of St. Mary’s University in Winona, MN where he received his master’s degree. He received his undergraduate training from both the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO and Bethel College, Arden Hills, MN. He is also licensed as a Marriage and Family Therapist and an Independent Clinical Social Worker. He is the owner and director of Associated Resources In Psychology, PA in Little Canada, MN where he maintains a private therapy practice.

He is a nationally known consultant and speaker on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues. He and his partner were featured on the nationally syndicated PBS television show In The Life. He has been interviewed for articles appearing in Genre magazine, Minneapolis Star Tribune and St. Paul Pioneer Press newspapers as well as Lavendar magazine and numerous other gay and religious publications. Twin Cities television and radio news media frequently turn to Jeff as a consultant on GLBT related issues.

He has specialized in addressing the complexities involved with the anti-gay theory known as Reparative Therapy which purports to prevent and cure homosexuality. He speaks from experience as one who studied and practiced reparative therapy for years. He was formerly the executive director of OUTPOST an “ex-gay” ministry located in Minneapolis, MN. For almost 10 years Jeff claimed to be a former homosexual. His story, along with the stories of twelve other “ex-ex-gays” is featured in the recently published volume Finally Free compiled by the Washington DC based Human Rights Campaign.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

A note to HH: Your use of the slippery slop argument is hilarious, as it is ridiculously similar to arguments used by gun-control nuts and gun nuts alike. Both being stupid, stupid arguments.

If X is the extreme of Y, implementing Y doesn’t always lead to X.

Pedophiles HURT PEOPLE. Rapists HURT PEOPLE. Unfaithful husbands HURT PEOPLE.

As long as Gay people hurt NO ONE, you cannot compare these things. [/quote]

So, by your reasoning, if your 13 year old daughter wants to go and live with a 25 year old guy, its okay since no one is being hurt. She WANTS it, no one is harmed. The 25 year old is a pedophile, but its okay according to your words.

Just as a society doesn’t let someone poison the water supply, they should not let the acceptance of bizarre and perverse beliefs into their moral code.

[Headhunter]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

A note to HH: Your use of the slippery slop argument is hilarious,

Not so fast Beowolf.

The funny thing about the slippery slope theory is that it’s correct! Even with something like guns that I very much approve of. Have you ever heard of anyone selling all of their guns and going back to not owning one once that they’ve decided to be a gun owner? No, in fact it’s quite the opposite. When I decided to become a gun owner over 20 years ago I bought one gun. To date I own seven guns!

Not so strange it’s the natural order of things.

Things usually don’t reverse themselves, they move forward, to the next things in most cases that is.

In parts of the world where homosexuals have had the right to marry (or civil unions have taken place) for a while, other “off beat” groups are demanding the same rights.

Now I hate to confuse this debate with more facts. I know how certain liberals (like Cap) hate to have facts brought into the debate, but you seem like a rational person so here you go:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/421

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

[/quote]

Yup. Once you allow one set of perverts to have a right, the rest will bring lawsuit after lawsuit for ‘equal treatment under the law’.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

A note to HH: Your use of the slippery slop argument is hilarious, as it is ridiculously similar to arguments used by gun-control nuts and gun nuts alike. Both being stupid, stupid arguments.

If X is the extreme of Y, implementing Y doesn’t always lead to X.

Pedophiles HURT PEOPLE. Rapists HURT PEOPLE. Unfaithful husbands HURT PEOPLE.

As long as Gay people hurt NO ONE, you cannot compare these things.

So, by your reasoning, if your 13 year old daughter wants to go and live with a 25 year old guy, its okay since no one is being hurt. She WANTS it, no one is harmed. The 25 year old is a pedophile, but its okay according to your words.

Just as a society doesn’t let someone poison the water supply, they should not let the acceptance of bizarre and perverse beliefs into their moral code.

[/quote]

Yay! Another failed attept at “If you defend homosexuality, you have to defend pedophilia!” Although the girl in your example may be old enough to claim to want something, being as she is not legally able to consent to sexual activity, if anything sexual did happen between her and a 25 year old guy, it would indeed be rape.

But whats this about not letting acceptance of “bizzarre and perverse” beliefs into societies moral code? Hm, I don’t suppose you’d want to try to apply that to Fantasy Feeders, Fuzzies, people who practice BDSM, swingers, the millions of heterosexuals who engage in oral and/or anal sex, those who have sex out of wedlock, people who create or watch scat or hentai or…hell, I’m sure we could find plenty of people who find the entire porn industry “bizarre and perverse”, don’t you?

But in all of THOSE cases, regardless of if people think its “bizarre and perverse”, they recognize that consenting adults can do with each other what they want. I’ve yet to hear someone say “If we let swingers have orgies whenever they want, we’ll have to let them have sex with children next!!!”

Sorry, HH, your logic fails. As usual.

[Beowolf]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

A note to HH: Your use of the slippery slop argument is hilarious,

Not so fast Beowolf.

The funny thing about the slippery slope theory is that it’s correct! Even with something like guns that I very much approve of. Have you ever heard of anyone selling all of their guns and going back to not owning one once that they’ve decided to be a gun owner? No, in fact it’s quite the opposite. When I decided to become a gun owner over 20 years ago I bought one gun. To date I own seven guns!

Not so strange it’s the natural order of things.

Things usually don’t reverse themselves, they move forward, to the next things in most cases that is.

In parts of the world where homosexuals have had the right to marry (or civil unions have taken place) for a while, other “off beat” groups are demanding the same rights.

Now I hate to confuse this debate with more facts. I know how certain liberals (like Cap) hate to have facts brought into the debate, but you seem like a rational person so here you go:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/421

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

Yup. Once you allow one set of perverts to have a right, the rest will bring lawsuit after lawsuit for ‘equal treatment under the law’.

[/quote]

Umm… did you just miss the last four posts or something? This has been debunked… a few times already.

[ZEB]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

A note to HH: Your use of the slippery slop argument is hilarious,

Not so fast Beowolf.

The funny thing about the slippery slope theory is that it’s correct! Even with something like guns that I very much approve of. Have you ever heard of anyone selling all of their guns and going back to not owning one once that they’ve decided to be a gun owner? No, in fact it’s quite the opposite. When I decided to become a gun owner over 20 years ago I bought one gun. To date I own seven guns!

Not so strange it’s the natural order of things.

Things usually don’t reverse themselves, they move forward, to the next things in most cases that is.

In parts of the world where homosexuals have had the right to marry (or civil unions have taken place) for a while, other “off beat” groups are demanding the same rights.

Now I hate to confuse this debate with more facts. I know how certain liberals (like Cap) hate to have facts brought into the debate, but you seem like a rational person so here you go:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/421

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

Yup. Once you allow one set of perverts to have a right, the rest will bring lawsuit after lawsuit for ‘equal treatment under the law’.

Umm… did you just miss the last four posts or something? This has been debunked… a few times already.[/quote]

None of this has been “debunked”. As I stated, in other parts of the world where homosexual unions have been around for a while other non-traditional groups are also attempting to achieve the same status.

I know liberals hate the facts, but there they are staring you in the face.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I know liberals hate the facts, but there they are staring you in the face.

[/quote]

Just in case anyone reading this is even inclined to buy into this fools assertation that “liberals hate the facts”, not that he had no response to the essay I copied and pasted a few posts back. I’ll highlight what I think to be the important parts (the essay is about reparative therapy, the “facts” that Zeb claims I hate):

“Its roots stem back to the work of a British theologian and self proclaimed psychologist, Elizabeth Moberly. Moberly wrote a couple of books in the early 1980’s that the early “ex-gay” movement found very intriguing. By far the most readable but not the easiest book was titled Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Her “research” involved no subjects!”…“When asked how many clients she had treated, she admitted she had seen none. When asked about her “research” she honestly reported she had done no new research.”

So it comes from the theory of a “psychologist” who never treated a single patient and never did any new research. I know thats the kind of stuff I like my “facts” to be based on!

So called professionals like Joseph Nicolosi and Charles Socoriades picked up the ball and ran with it. They started NARTH, the National Association for Recovery and Treatment of Homosexuality. They are prolific writers who have self published many official sounding “research” papers on recovery from homosexuality. What they have failed to substantiate is any reliable data to support the theory. Everything remains anecdotal, based on the self report of people like me who had everything to lose and nothing to gain by admitting they have not been “cured”. There are no studies in peer reviewed scientific journals that support the use of reparative therapies or attempts of any kind to cure homosexuality.

[b] So, just as I’ve been saying, they lack reliabe data because they collect anecdotal “evidence” from people who are highly pressured to answer in a particular way. Funny, how my “raving lunatic liberal” response was the same as some involved heavily in the movement for a decade.

Also, lets look at that last line a few more times:

There are no studies in peer reviewed scientific journals that support the use of reparative therapies or attempts of any kind to cure homosexuality.

There are no studies in peer reviewed scientific journals that support the use of reparative therapies or attempts of any kind to cure homosexuality.

The above sentence speaks for itself better than I could. I hope everyone reading this is getting an idea of how much BS Zebs “facts” are. [/b]

[i]I decided now, after almost 15 years, to speak out forcefully about the “ex-gay” movement because there is a new and much more dangerous threat on the horizon. Huge organizations with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend have slowly started to “adopt” the “ex-gay” cause. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council and D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge ministries are the most visible…
A new “kinder and gentler” money making campaign of hate and intolerance is being launched. Using the unsubstantiated claims of the sincere but misguided “ex-gays”, megalithic organizations are trying to deny basic human rights protection to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. They are attempting to accomplish this by presenting homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle, one which “many” are choosing to leave. By reducing sexual orientation to a “choice”, they are trying to build a case against gay rights, domestic partnership benefits and hate crimes legislation. Their twisted logic assumes that if people want to be “normal” and “fit it” they can. If they “choose” to run wild and deviate they should not be afforded “special privileges”…
They have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars buying full page adds in major newspapers across the country. They have produced television commercials.

It is the goal of the new “ex-gay movement” to influence public opinion, to spread their misinformation throughout the school system and to raise just enough doubt to sway legislators away from supporting equal rights, domestic partnership and hate crimes legislation.
[/i]

Hey wow, people using the ex-gay movement to try to basic human rights protection to gays by presenting it as a choice! Now, I wonder, again, how my “raving lunatic liberal” rants just happen to coincide with what is actually happening, considering I wasnt even aware of the full page adds in newspapers and television commercials on the subject. ESP, maybe? Or could it just be that its the obvious commonsense extention of such (false, thoroughly debunked, never scientifically accepted) reasoning?

John Paulk and his ex-lesbian wife Ann, the poster children for the movement, are loving the media hype and attention. While in Chicago protesting the American Psychological Associations refusal to debate the merits of reparative therapy, they had their 4 year old son carrying a sign that read, “I love my ex-gay parents”. Paulk has no credentials to support his title of “homosexuality and gender specialist” for Focus on the Family’s public policy division. He is deemed a “specialist” simply because he claims to be healed.

Well isnt that nice, someone is deemed a therapist with no credentials to support his title claiming to be healed by a therapy developed by a psychologist who saw no patients and did no research.
Oh no, I am so liberal scared of these facts, someone please help!!

Reparative therapy will appear to make sense and sound reasonable to people who don’t challenge the initial assumption that homosexuality is a disease or a complex.
Why do we assume that sexual diversity is pathological? Why would we entertain inviting prejudice and bigotry to the table? If every major scientific association has gone on record against the sorcery of reparative therapy, why do we feel compelled to give it “equal time”? Neo-Nazi’s are not invited in to share their “science” of white male supremacy in biology classes.

[b] Again one particular phrase from the above quote stick out, I wonder if any advocates of reparative therapy would like to guess which one? Ok, quiz time is up, heres the answer:

If every major scientific association has gone on record against the sorcery of reparative therapy

If every major scientific association has gone on record against the sorcery of reparative therapy

Again, I’ve nothing to add to that.[/b]

[i] About the author: Jeffry G. Ford, MA, Licensed Psychologist:

He has specialized in addressing the complexities involved with the anti-gay theory known as Reparative Therapy which purports to prevent and cure homosexuality. He speaks from experience as one who studied and practiced reparative therapy for years. He was formerly the executive director of OUTPOST an “ex-gay” ministry located in Minneapolis, MN. For almost 10 years Jeff claimed to be a former homosexual.[/i]

Dont worry though, people who do quick searches looking for “healed gays” and repost statistics from religious organizations while claming not, themselves, to be religiously motivated, who themselves don’t read any further but present the material from those religiously motivated websites to be “facts” CERTAINLY know more about the ex-gay movement and reparative therapy than someone who claimed to be an ex-gay for a decade, who also is an actual psychologist, and was the executive director of an “ex-gay” ministry. I mean, what would he know about it?

So reparative therapy is based on the work of a psychologist who never saw a patient or did any research, nothing in any peer reviewed journals support it, every major scientific association has gone on record against it, “specialists” in it have no credentials other than claiming to be healed by it, it collects no reliabe data because it relies only on the claims of people who are heavily pressured to give particular answers, and proponents of it want to justify it in order to justify discrimination against homosexuals (as evidence by their full page newspaper ads and television commercials), and is fully rested on the LIE that homosexuality is in any way wrong.

Whats funny is that I’ve been saying most of this stuff from the beginning of the debate, and all the actual FACTS and EVIDENCE backs up what I’ve been saying. Maybe its because I use common sense and reasoning and not fear and bigotry?

[orion]

An Open Letter to Straights
Date: 2006-03-07, 1:50PM PST

An open letter to Straights

Apparently all this time I�??ve been shoving my sexuality in your face and forcing it on you. I misunderstood. I didn�??t know. I am so sorry.

I mistakenly thought it was you who were shoving your lifestyle in my face when you called me faggot before I even knew what that word meant.

I thought you were forcing your sexuality on me when you and your friends cornered me in the locker room after gym class in junior high school, called me a goddamn homo and beat the shit out of me.

I thought the coach was forcing his lifestyle on me when he shouted down at my broken and bleeding body in the locker room that I asked for it because I was looking at the other guys �??funny�??.

I thought you were shoving your sexuality in my face when you spray painted my name and �??is a fag�?? on the side of the High school building.

When you and your friends trashed my car and then afterwards ran me off the road as I was walking home from school, laughing and calling me a �??Queer�?? I thought I was just walking home from school and not forcing my sexuality down your throat.

I was mistaken and apparently trying to force my deviant lifestyle on you in college that day when thought I might be just trying to find someone like me to talk to when you and your cop friends entrapped me, arrested me and beat me up and threw me in jail because I looked at you the wrong way and smiled at you.

Apparently I asked for it when you and your friends chased me down the street, pulled me into an alley and broke my nose with a booze bottle after I had the gall to come out a known gay bar one night in college.

When I was in the military, I thought one of my friends might be just trying to live a decent, honorable life with his partner of 10 years when you and your military police friends pulled him into an interrogation room and accused him of sodomy because he was living with a guy and not dating women. When you kicked him out of the service and dumped him 3500 miles from his home with no money and no job, I didn�??t realize that he was forcing his lifestyle on you. I�??m sure he�??s sorry too.

I didn�??t realize that you were offended by us when my best friend asked to be admitted to his partners�?? hospital room while he was dying. You see, he�??d lived with him for 20 years and they had shared their life together but had the misfortune of living in a state where people like him had no �??legal status�?? and so his sweet love of 20 years died alone surrounded by people who thought that God had given him AIDS as punishment for the sin of homosexuality. He didn�??t understand that your religious sensibilities were more important than his misguided need to be with his partner when he died.

All this time I thought you were forcing your sexuality on me, but now I know that I was forcing mine on you. I am so sorry that all my life, I�??ve mistakenly thought that being left alone to live my life, to work and to have a home and family and to be allowed to love who I choose was just living my life - like you live yours.

Little did I know that all that time I was cramming my disgusting sexuality and lifestyle down your throat, forcing you to accept me and demanding �??Special Rights�??.

Now that I�??m older and wiser, you�??ll excuse the silly idealism of a dotty middle aged guy who had a vain hope that maybe I could marry the guy I�??ve been living with for fifteen years and not have to worry if my religiously devout family will decide to ransack my home after my death because my family �?? the family who have largely cared less if I lived or died �?? have more legal rights than my partner, no matter what I say in my will.

You�??ll excuse my mistaken notion that I should be allowed to have a good job and not be fired at will because my boss might find out that I live with a guy and am still �??single�??. You�??ll pardon my liberal sensibilities when I think I should be able to rent an apartment from someone who might decide that two guys living together is �??an abomination�??, or be able to open a joint checking account with my partner, because now I know that it isn�??t �??normal�?? for two guys to set up a home together.

Hopefully, you�??ll excuse my mistaken notion that my life and my love and my family are at least as important and significant as yours �?? yes, even when you beat the shit out of your wife the day after she caught you fucking the underaged babysitter, even when you tossed your 15 year old gay son out on the streets, even when I gladly pay very high taxes to send your kids to good schools and you cheat on yours.

I hope you will understand when I was momentarily struck speechless when you raised up your bible and told me that God thinks that I am an abomination and will go to hell. You�??ll excuse me for my silly notion that God maybe has other more pressing matters than to care that much if I decide that I want to live with someone I love instead of being alone and celibate. You�??ll pardon my weakness when I want a family and have to do it by shoving my homosexual lifestyle in your face.

Finally, please excuse the silly sentimentality of an old man who after nearly six decades of life sees a movie with two �??normal�?? guys who are cowboys who fall in love together. It�??s been a long time since I�??ve seen any people like me in the movies who aren�??t silly and shallow or tragic and dying of something or another. It�??s been years since I�??ve seen someone like me love someone like my partner and not die because of it or end up some tragic stupid queen. So the movie made me happy and so I was momentarily blinded by the hope that it might be recognized as a watershed moment in tolerance. I now know it was a shameful use of one of your dearest symbols of American manliness to once again shove my disgusting lifestyle down your throat.

You�??ll excuse me please.

All this time, all my life �?? I just thought you were trying to make me be something that I can never be. I just thought you were forcing me to conform to your idea of normality. I mistakenly thought you hated me.

I was mistaken. Obviously, all this time I was forcing my lifestyle on you. Please accept my apologies.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/139883238.html

[orion]

0 reasons why gay marriage should be illegal
Date: 2005-10-06, 12:53PM PDT

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[Beowolf]

And Orion wins the gay part of the internet! That’s a good 55%!

What the hell, you can have to straight part too…

Ownage for Equality.

[matsukaze]

 Anyone who's ever spent time on a farm (or watched a lot of nature programs) should realize that complex decisions aren't necessary to exhibit homosexual behavior.  Male and female animals do it (frequently) both in captivity and the wild.  Animals with very simple brains do it (e.g. some lizards), and animals with very complex brains do it, too (e.g. some dolphins).  Did you "decide" to be straight? A very small few of you might have.  Most of you didn't. 

 If you think that animal behavior has absolutely nothing to do with human behavior, well, there's probably nothing that I can do for you.  Parting thought - why would anyone have "chosen" to be homosexual in the 1950's? (But there they were, hiding in secret.)

Edit: (Sorry, I didn’t mean to resurrect an ancient post. I didn’t realize how old it was until it was too late.)