But what if the facts clearly show that homosexuals can change and that the success rate among those who tried is quite high? Too bad for the facts. Dare to publish them and you'll be accused of "discrimination" and "hate mongering" by militant homosexuals. So, when a Christian advocacy group, Life Productions, posted a 30-second commercial on CTV, suggesting that it is possible for homosexuals to quit their destructive lifestyle, get back to normal life and start a family, the ad was pulled off the air just 3 days later. Was there actually anything hateful and discriminatory? Judge for yourself.
The ad, narrated by John Westcott, (the founder of Exchange ministries, an organization that seeks to help practicing homosexuals who wish to leave the lifestyle) goes as follows:
"You hear a lot about gay rights, gay marriage and the gay lifestyle being taught in our public schools for children," says Westcott in the ad, "but what many people don't realize, and seldom hear, is that many homosexuals don't want to be homosexual. What many who are struggling with homosexuality don't realize, and seldom hear, is that they can change. I should know - for 13 years, I used to be one."John Westcott is himself a former homosexual, as is his wife Dena. He shares his life experience with others, talking about a problem he overcame. What's so "hateful" and "discriminatory" about that?
Most likely the ad ended up being banned simply because it challenges the "sexual orientation" myth the militant homosexuals use to shove their agenda down people's throats. Because that compels them to admit that the society can't be held responsible for the lifestyle choices they make.
People insist that orientation can't change ... maybe they feel so strongly about this because they want to believe they can't help their actions. No wonder they're so angry when someone comes forward and says they have been able to change.Sheila J. posted that on the "wall" of a facebook group in support of Lifeproductions. Well said, Sheila!
27 comments:
John Westcott is himself a former homosexual
It's probably worth noting that, in the parlance of most ex-gay groups, being a "former homosexual" is not quite the same thing as being a heterosexual.
The groups all have religious affiliations, and none of them promise to "switch" a person's sexual feelings for the same-sex into feelings for the opposite sex. So, while they use the terminology that homosexuals can "change," it's a bit misleading, because they're not really saying that homosexuals, even if they want to, can change into heterosexuals.
Well, judging from John Westcott's example, it is possible for a used-to-be homosexual to change and to become a heterosexual. After all, Mr. Westcott is married, isn't he? So why would his marriage to his wife Dena be any different than any other marriage?
Another thing: If it doesn't surprise anyone that a used-to-be heterosexual man can suddenly declare himself a homosexual, then why can't a homosexual man realize that he's made a wrong lifestyle choice and become heterosexual?
Yes, it may not be easy for someone vulnerable to a compulsive and addictive behaviour to get back to normal, just as it's not easy for people to quit using drugs. But difficult doesn't mean impossible.
So far, the facts show that homosexuals can change and that the success among those who try is quite high. That's why I believe we should help homosexuals to change rather than suggest that they must learn to live with it and be "proud".
If it doesn't surprise anyone that a used-to-be heterosexual man can suddenly declare himself a homosexual[...]
Would you say, then, that former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey was a heterosexual until he declared himself a homosexual? I don't think that's the consensus opinion, nor what either Jim or his wife Dina believe to be the case.
Well, judging from John Westcott's example, it is possible for a used-to-be homosexual to change and to become a heterosexual.
Far be it from me to say what John Westcott's feelings toward his wife are. But it's well-documented that many ex-gay groups do not promise to convert well-meaning believers to from "homosexual" to "heterosexual."
And there _isn't_ literature that supports the notion that a homosexual person can go from being "primarily attracted to the same sex" to being "attracted to the opposite sex in the same way that a heterosexual is." Even successful ex-gays describe a struggle with their attractions.
One example is this man's story. (I'm not citing a gay newspaper here, but Christianity Today):
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/march11/2.50.html
just as it's not easy for people to quit using drugs.
I'm not sure that analogy holds. If we consider an addictive substance, such as nicotine or cocaine, we're talking about something that virtually anyone could develop a hard-to-break addiction to. Even laboratory animals can be induced to be addicted to substances like that.
If homosexuality were comparable, then we could expect that exposure to homosexual behavior could cause anyone, or nearly anyone, to become a homosexual. Do you believe that to be true? I strongly doubt that my father would become attracted to men even if for some reason he had sex with dozens and dozens of them over a long period of time. On the other hand, my brother was attracted to men before he had ever engaged in any sexual activity. Do you believe that with enough gay sex, even you could be induced to become homosexual?
Certainly, sexual behavior is a complicated issue. We might liken it to handedness, because, while it's a "preference," it's also something that just "feels right" to the individual. Some people do successfully switch hands; others find it difficult or unnecessary.
Other, perhaps wiser, individuals might see the pressure to switch handedness, like the pressure to switch sexual orientation, a little misguided and silly.
Not sure about the NJ governor, but our celebrity pervert Svend Robinson used to be married to a woman in 1970s, so it would be reasonable to assume he was a heterosexual back then.
By the way - with all the examples you gave about former homosexuals still having homosexual desires - are you sure that all those who "came out" at the age of 30 or 40 don't really have heterosexual desires?
As for the analogies - so far there's no proof that homosexuality is "in-born", rather the opposite. While some may be pre-disposed to such behavior (same as people may be pre-disposed to obesity or alcohol addiction), it's the actual behavior and experience that matters.
The individual circumstances may vary - it might be a traumatic experience such as child abuse at an early age, after which a man simply can't picture normal relationships or it can be a psychological imprinting such as "girls are mean, boys are kind". It could be a persuasion such as "how do you know you won't like it, if you've never tried" or a perception that a best buddy would make a great life partner - as it could be the case for the person whose story you brought as example.
Sure, just like former drug- or alcohol addicts, ex-homosexuals may still suffer from leftover addiction - like that anonymous letter writer does. The problem is there are barely no places where a person like that guy can seek help. Moreover, the mere idea that he should fight the psychological imprinting he's got at the age of 10, is denounced as heresy by militant homosexuals.
But - even as we're looking at that man's story - he overcame suicidal depression, he's got a loving family and he won't die in his mid 50s from a gay-related disease - as many promiscuious homosexuals do. Yes, getting rid of destructive and addictive lifestyle isn't easy. But for that guy - it is worth the effort.
are you sure that all those who "came out" at the age of 30 or 40 don't really have heterosexual desires?
I'm not really sure what you're asking there. Are you saying that there might be people who come out in their thirties and forties who struggle against heterosexual attractions, even as they try hard to be gay?
I wouldn't rule out the existence of such people, but I haven't encountered a lot of evidence of them, and it seems counter-intuitive that any significant number of people who take the step of identifying as gay would do so absent an attraction to the same sex.
our celebrity pervert Svend Robinson used to be married to a woman in 1970s, so it would be reasonable to assume he was a heterosexual back then.
I guess it depends how you define "heterosexual." Is it a person whose sexual behavior involves members of the opposite sex, or someone who is actually attracted to members of the opposite sex? I'd say that sexual orientation is defined by the sex you're oriented toward, not by the sex that you engage in sexual activity with. A woman who has sex with women (say, for money or attention?) is not necessarily gay, and a man who has sex with women (say, because his family and social circle believe that's the only acceptable lifestyle for a man) is not necessarily straight.
Sexuality is a complicated thing. I wouldn't oversimplify the issue by saying that there's a "gay gene," or by saying that the lack of a gay gene therefore proves that homosexuality must be caused by child abuse and kindergarten imprinting.
The fact is, the vast, vast majority of human beings on the planet believe that their own sexual orientation is innate. This massive near-consensus doesn't equal proof, of course, but let's be honest: the number of people who believe their own sexual orientation is a choice that they have made, or the result of external circumstances, is a tiny radical fringe.
Yes, what I meant is that at least some of those who "come out" at the age of 30 or 40 (especially if those people were previously in heterosexual relationship) are doing that to gain publicity - in politics, show business etc. Not sure how it actually affects their sexual life, but it's not like someone really checks on them, is it?
As for sexuality being "a complicated thing" - it becomes as complicated or as simple as one wants it to be. If one is determined to overcome his perverse attraction - he'll succeed. If however one puts his desires above common sense (let alone - above time-tested values and morals) - then of course he has no choice than whining about how there's nothing he can do about it and how cruel is the world that won't accept him as he is...
Many people believe that so called orientation is innate? People once used to believe that the sun revolves around the earth - but it didn't actually make it so, did it? Now we have another belief (and a powerful movement that denounces any opposition as heresy), but that doesn't negate the fact that change is possible for homosexuals. And since the change is possible - it should be encouraged.
at least some of those who "come out" at the age of 30 or 40 (especially if those people were previously in heterosexual relationship) are doing that to gain publicity
Do you have any examples? While it's entirely possible, I can't imagine that is very widespread.
People once used to believe that the sun revolves around the earth - but it didn't actually make it so, did it? Now we have another belief (and a powerful movement that denounces any opposition as heresy), but that doesn't negate the fact that change is possible for homosexuals.
Are you saying, then, that the best science available today supports the notion that sexual orientation is completely changeable?
I'll concede that sexual behavior is changeable. Certainly, with enough willpower, any man is probably physically capable of putting it in any receptacle. But if your contention is that the best-qualified scientists doing the most advanced research into human sexual behavior support your notion that homosexual orientation (not behavior, but orientation) is completely changeable, I don't think that's the case.
Many people believe that so called orientation is innate?
What I said was that most people believe that their own sexual orientation is innate. Don't you believe that your heterosexuality is innate?
The examples are all around us. From what I heard, they are plenty in the artistic community, but since I don't follow popular culture - I can't name names.
However I mentioned Svend Robinson as possible example - he used to be married in 1970s, then he divorced his wife, "came out" as "openly gay" and became the most radical campaigner for the homosexual lobby in the House of Commons.
My point is that homosexual behavior isn't innate, but acquired. Sometimes - as result of a trauma or a psychological imprinting, but sometimes also as a conscientious choice to gain scandalous publicity or other material benefits.
<<What I said was that most people believe that their own sexual orientation is innate. Don't you believe that your heterosexuality is innate?>>
That has nothing to do with beliefs. I know that my body functions the way it's designed to function. If it doesn't, then I go to the doctor and make sure that normal functionality of my body is restored.
Homosexuality is not an "orientation". It's a condition where some functions of a human body are distorted. So far the facts are that such condition is by no means innate and that, once acquired, a change back is still possible.
Those are the facts. Unfortunately, certain influential groups choose to declare those facts a heresy, so they could advance their agenda. Instead of helping people to quit homosexual lifestyle and start a normal family, they use homosexuals as political pawns.
sometimes also as a conscientious choice to gain scandalous publicity or other material benefits.
I can't imagine that being gay is a real career-booster except for certain provocative musicians or actors. And even so, it's illogical that someone need actually have gay sex in order to reap the benefits. Someone could just claim to be having gay sex.
Sorry, that example just really seems like a stretch.
That has nothing to do with beliefs. I know that my body functions the way it's designed to function.
The difference between what you believe you know and what you know you know is semantic. Your beliefs don't become knowledge simply because you're just absolutely gosh-darn certain that you're right.
Instead of helping people to quit homosexual lifestyle and start a normal family, they use homosexuals as political pawns.
Uh...wow, Leonard. The guy you linked to doesn't come across as a paranoid wacko at all. Not a bit!
<<Your beliefs don't become knowledge simply because you're just absolutely gosh-darn certain that you're right.>>
I thought biology is scientifically based. Fact: human body is designed to function in a certain way. Among other things - human body is designed to experience sexual attraction to the opposite gender. It's as simple as that.
Even if certain people choose to call their distortion a "sexual orientation" which they claim is "unchangeable" (even though facts clearly show otherwise) - those claims can't negate simple biological facts.
Among other things - human body is designed to experience sexual attraction to the opposite gender. It's as simple as that.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that millions of years of evolution have created human bodies that are biologically designed to be attracted to the opposite gender, so that we can mate properly to pass on our genes?
I would even say - from the beginning the human body was biologically designed to be attracted to the opposite gender. Because human beings never propagated by vegetative methods. There have always been males and females - and naturally, males were attracted to females and vice versa.
What do you mean when you say, "from the beginning?" Are we talking about human beings that evolved from single-celled organisms, or are we talking about Adam and Eve?
I'm talking about human beings. Be that Adam and Eve or be that the very first species on earth that could be biologically classified as human beings - whatever theory you prefer.
I'm not going to start the discussion about the origin of the species. I don't think it would make sense to argue whether it was God or evolution that had designed humans as they are. What matters is the facts:
There are two genders - males and females (no "shemales", "genderqueers", "females trapped in males' bodies" etc) and human body is designed to experience sexual attraction to the opposite gender. That's the way it has been for as long as human beings have been human beings.
What's commonly referred to as "alternative lifestyle" or "homosexual orientation" is nothing but a sexual disfunction that is neither "normal" nor innate.
There are two genders - males and females (no "shemales", "genderqueers", "females trapped in males' bodies" etc) and human body is designed to experience sexual attraction to the opposite gender.
Actually, a very small percentage of people are born intersex, either with ambiguous genitalia, or with some combination of sexual characteristics of both genders.
Are they not humans, in your thinking, or are they an exception who get to trust their own instinct when it comes to which gender they're attracted to?
While such birth defect doesn't make them "unhuman" - it doesn't make them some sort of a "third" gender either. Usually those people either remain sterile or get their disorder fixed (surgically or hormonally or in any other way) and then - male goes to female and vice versa.
But it's not like any of the high-profile campaigners for homosexual lobby had those defects at birth. And same is true for their followers. With very few exceptions, they had their gender clearly defined and their sexual dysfunctions are by no means innate.
Usually those people either remain sterile or get their disorder fixed (surgically or hormonally or in any other way) and then - male goes to female and vice versa.
So, clearly, variance does occur in terms of both the physical and hormonal structures of gender in humans.
You make the claim that sexual attraction is biological; that is, that the human body is "designed" to have sexual attraction to the opposite gender. Yet somehow, you continue to maintain that this biological distinction can show no variation? That there is no room for a phenotypic male to feel the attraction toward men that a phenotypic female might feel?
Usually those people either remain sterile or get their disorder fixed (surgically or hormonally or in any other way) and then - male goes to female and vice versa.
That's not really an either/or proposition; most persons born intersex remain sterile for the rest of their lives. Did you mean that many of these people remain celibate?
>>You make the claim that sexual attraction is biological; that is, that the human body is "designed" to have sexual attraction to the opposite gender. Yet somehow, you continue to maintain that this biological distinction can show no variation? That there is no room for a phenotypic male to feel the attraction toward men that a phenotypic female might feel?<<
Nope. Those "variations" you mentioned are either birth defects or acquired sexual dysfunctions. There's countless number of ways in which anything (including a human body) could be twisted, deformed, mutilated or abused. But that doesn't make it normal or natural, let alone - virtuous.
Naturally, there are 2 (two) genders; What you call "intersex" is in fact a birth defect. Naturally, human body is designed to be attracted to the opposite gender. What is commonly referred to as "alternative sexual orientation" is a sexual dysfunction which, as it turns out, is acquired, rather than innate.
>>Did you mean that many of these people remain celibate?<<
Pretty much so. What other choice could there be for someone born with a deformed genitalia? Unless of course, this could be fixed - surgically or hormonally or some other way.
What other choice could there be for someone born with a deformed genitalia?
Well, there's oral sex, anal sex, cuddling, and a number of other possibilities in addition to celibacy. The unitive properties of sex need not be avoided just because nature or nurture left a person with a sexual "dysfunction."
Are you sure all the variations of perverse sex you've mentioned actually have the same unitive functions as a normal sexual act between a man and a woman? Judging from the way such perversions affect individual's health and life expectancy, they could hardly be viewed as valid options.
Would you say that, in making your claim that evidence supports the notion that no sexual orientation is innate or fixed, you rely on research that is similar, in terms of scientific rigor and credibility, to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron?
He has made quite a name for himself.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/11/288
http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?submit.x=0&submit.y=0&id=3944&qt=longevity+gay+cameron
Since your last post was responding to my comments about sex options available for people with ambiguous genitalia, are you saying that oral sex and anal sex are so dangerous that no one should ever engage in them? Statistically, far more heterosexuals engage in both anal sex and oral sex than homosexuals. (Even without hard date--no pun intended--I'm willing to consider that a higher percentage of gay men engage in anal sex, but there are far more heterosexual couples in the U.S. than there are gay couples, such that the actual number of couples engaging in anal sex is higher for straight couples.)
For the record, I'm not willing to make a statement like, "Oral sex and anal sex are so dangerous that no one should ever engage in them." I think that, to make such a statement, one must seriously misunderstand statistics.
My position is based on a self-evident truth that natural functionality of a human body is that a man is attracted to a woman and vice versa. That's how human beings are biologically designed.
So even if homosexuality was innate (even if it was) then it would be nothing but a birth defect, similar to a condition when someone is born with deformed genitalia; something worthy of compassion but by no means - normal.
Yet, as the studies show, homosexuality is not innate. What's commonly referred to as "sexual orientation" is in fact a sexual dysfunction or sometimes - a mere lifestyle choice. Facts are - homosexuals can change. Therefore - change should be encouraged.
As for the sexual perversions that you've mentioned in the last couple of comments - what I meant is - those are just that - perversions. The fact that those things are possible to perform doesn't mean they are biologically normal. Those are not real sexual acts, but abusive practices (regardless of who uses them) that are damaging to human health and therefore - should neither be encouraged nor promoted as valid choices.
Cameron's research may be disputed (although his challengers somehow don't bother providing their own stats) - well, there are other researches that prove the same thing.
Too bad I can't give you the link to Citizens For Parental Rights page (the site was taken down couple years ago) but I saved some of the pages - they too were showing that infectious diseases as well as STDs in such "gay-friendly" cities as San Francisco are well above the national average.
Leondard, the link you provided on "is not innate" links to an article on a web page provided by the Christian organization American Family Association.
That article discusses an ABC news report entitled "Can a Baby Be Gay?" but it doesn't provide any evidence of its own.
Instead, it links to the web page of another Christian organization, Concerned Women for America.
This new page, the "evidence" that you're citing, quotes a scientist who states:
He wrote: "There is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation," and that he would never "imply that one consciously decides one's sexual orientation."
One can reasonably infer two things from the evidence provided:
1.) You (and the Concerned Women for America) are confusing a critique of research with evidence for the contrary. If a group debunks ten studies that claimed to provide evidence that homosexuality is innate, that still doesn't amount to proof that it isn't innate.
If you tell a child that Santa Claus doesn't exist because there's no such thing as reindeer, and the kid looks up reindeer in the encyclopedia and realizes that you're wrong, that doesn't mean he now has evidence that Santa Claus exists.
2.) Knight, in the article you link to, criticizes the way that a news story identifies Dr. Stanton Jones as a Christian, as if this is an irrelevant red herring.
But then, to support what he calls Jones' contention he links not to a scientific study or to peer-reviewed research or to a web page from a state-funded institution. No, mere moments after Knight rebukes ABC for using the label "Christian" to taint a man's scientific opinion, Knight links to a Christian web site to provide the "ample evidence" for Jones' views.
That alone doesn't debunk Knight's evidence, but it does suggest he's being a tad hypocritical when he pretends Christian faith is irrelevant to a person's views on a "moral" issue.
Actually, if you go through the comments to that article, you'll see the following:
<<"Gay gene? Then God has changed me genetically. I am a reformed gay; completely reformed--with normal hetrosexual feelings and desires. Praise God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit for the wonderful work they have done in my soul!">>
And let's not forget John Westcott, a former homosexual and his ad, which triggered our debate. And there are others like Michael Glatze who quit the lifestyle, proving that at least for them it's not innate.
In addition, we got some researches like this one, challenging the claims that homosexuality is innate; suggesting that if genes are involved, we're talking about predisposition (same as people may be predisposed to obesity or alcohol abuse), but not about genetic predetermination.
Finally, militant homosexuals themselves often oppose any research on the origins of homosexuality. Couple years ago, a group of scientists started researching sheep, looking for the "gay gene". One would think homosexuals would welcome that as a step towards getting a material proof to their claims. Yet they denounced the research as allegedly designed to seek "genetic fix" to homosexuality.
Considering all the above, it's not us who should explain why homosexuality is neither innate, nor normal. It's them who should be asked to prove that their lifestyle is actually innate and that biologically it's no different than traditional man-woman relationship.
So, Stony Olsen is a graduate of the School of Law at Brigham Young University, while A. Dean Byrd has been the Director of Clinical Training for Latter Day Saints Social Services at Brigham Young University.
Additionally, you quote a commenter on the article--the same article where Robert Knight criticizes ABC News' decision to identify a Christian, suggesting it's not relevant to his views, where the poster says--"Praise God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit for the wonderful work they have done in my soul!"
It would seem that Knight is being a little duplicitous in his essay, and that a person's Christian faith is highly relevant to his or her "scientific" views on sexual orientation. Such that even people who complain that the correlation is not relevant have difficulty finding evidence that doesn't come from fervent religious believers.
I don't want to cast aspersions on someone of faith, but I'm curious: if you were examining scientific evidence that women were less intelligent, less capable of business decisions, or less capable of holding positions of power in government, would you raise an eyebrow if the bulk of that scientific evidence came from devout Muslims?
proving that at least for them it's not innate.
This I'll concede; that some people do report a happy "conversion" from one sexual orientation to another. But perhaps we can both acknowledge that there's no scientific evidence that this is true for all people?
<<This I'll concede; that some people do report a happy "conversion" from one sexual orientation to another. But perhaps we can both acknowledge that there's no scientific evidence that this is true for all people?>>
But is there actually an evidence this isn't true for at least one person? Was there anyone for whom this "gay gene" was actually found? Or at the least - for whom it was confirmed that his sexual dysfunction is actually innate and/or genetic?
Up until the latter is confirmed there's no way one could conclude that change isn't possible for all homosexuals. Sure getting back to normal might be more difficult for some than it is for others. But difficult doesn't mean impossible.
As for the rest - I don't care what church one goes to (if any) as long as what he says actually makes sense. If the facts go against some egalitarian / moral-relativist theory - then it's the theory that's messed up, not the facts.
Was there anyone for whom this "gay gene" was actually found?
This presents a false dichotomy; since it is not necessary to propose a "gay gene" in order to maintain that homosexuality may be innate.
There is a growing body of research, however, that gay people--or some of them--are different from straight people in ways that have nothing to do with chosen behavior:
http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/
While the samples (for the hair whorl and finger-length studies, for example) are self-selected, they were not selected on a basis of what their hair or fingers looked like from the beginning.
A number of biological explanations for homosexual orientation are possible without resorting to the straw man of the "gay gene." It's possible that sexual orientation is set while a fetus is developing in the womb; the mother's genetics may actually play a role, instead of the inherited genes of the child. (Some studies indicate that boys are more likely to be gay if their mother's womb was occupied by male fetuses before them.)
Sexual orientation (and handedness) could involve imprinting, or could be acquired the way that children acquire language and syntax without studying it or thinking about it.
Sexual orientation could involve a predisposition, as you suggest. Some people are predisposed to be tall; others to be fat, but the way that these genetic likelihoods play out varies from person to person.
It's also entirely possible--indeed, likely--that sexual orientation is very different for women and for men, and that it's just not possible to make blanket statements about what is true for the human species without breaking it down along gender lines.
But is there actually an evidence this isn't true for at least one person?
I think what you're asking is, "Is there any evidence that there is no person alive who has changed his/her sexual orientation?" In that case, I'd say, no, there isn't evidence that no one has been able to change their orientation. I think we both agree on that.
And, since we both seem to also agree that there's no evidence that sexual orientation is changeable for all people, perhaps--in the absence of evidence--the person best-qualified to determine the sexual orientation of a given person is that person.
Post a Comment