Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you guys are thinking too much into this and I wish this thread would die already.
Personally, if a parent wishes to get an abortion because their child will have green eyes or a big nose then by all means, that's their right (as long as it's within the first tri-mester); same goes if the child carries the 'gay gene'.
Homosexuality is NOT Biological. A common fallacy. Darwin's theory of natural selection alone refutes this notion of homosexuality being biological.
Except that homosexuality is indeed found in nature. You see homosexual animals adopting abandoned infant animals, even if it's of another species! I think it is to be proven that homosexuality is natural and does serve a purpose in our society.
Except that homosexuality is indeed found in nature. You see homosexual animals adopting abandoned infant animals, even if it's of another species! I think it is to be proven that homosexuality is natural and does serve a purpose in our society.
No but thats what they're supposed to do...They arent supposed to keep badgering a client who has stated that they have become perfectly content with their lives, and convincing him or her that they are lying to themselves.
If a person goes to a psychologist, it's usually because they have some problem(s) they want help with, is it not? If a person is homosexual but wants to try to live as a heterosexual in a heterosexual relationship...and is perfectly happy and content doing so...then why would they go to see a psychologist? If it's not causing a problem for the person...then fine.
But if someone asks a psychologist if "praying away the gay" works because they are distressed about being gay or bi and want to be straight...then the psychologist is ethically bound to inform the client of the lack of evidence for success and the potential for harm. If the client still wants to try to "change" their sexual orientation, then at least the psychologist has presented them with the most up-to date, peer-reviewed, evidence based information and they can make informed decisions for themselves. They are not likely to "badger" the client or force their own personal or religious values and beliefs on the client. That's the sort of unethical practice "ex-gay" or "reparative" or SOCE "therapists" are more likely to do and is exactly what the APA warns about in their latest 2009 report on SOCE (Sexual orientation Change Efforts) which I linked to in an earlier post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
why do people always bring religion into this? what is it with people's obsession with what ministers and pastors and shamen and whoever else does the hocus pocus hokey pokey think?..who gives a damn, what they think. If you're not comfortable being straight then be gay..if you're not comfortable being gay then be straight...whether some guy in a dress with a microphone thinks the toothfairy is going to rain "Hellfire and brimstone" down on you for it should be irrespective of the decision. I personally dont think praying changes anything...I doubt many straight or asexual people can just pray and change their sexuality either....YOU have to want to change. And like anything else, you have to work and make lifestyle changes to do so.
Why do people bring religion into this? Because it's religious-based groups who are the main ones who spend inordinate amounts of time, energy and money to vilify homosexuals by spreading ignorance, misinformation, bigotry and hate. Try researching anti-gay websites or organisations and you'll find that the majority can be traced back to religious based conservative groups with an anti-homosexual agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
yeah, ive heard about the weiner thing...they've already deemed that unethical and inaccurate as a guage to measure anyone's sexuality. One study found that married straight men flew into a rage because the weiner thing kept showing that they were catching boners when they were watching gay porn...lol
Weiner thing..LOL. That's funny. But why would "they" (who are "they" btw?) deem them innaccurate and unethical just because married "straight" men got boners? Maybe they just weren't so completely "straight" afterall.
And your evidence for making that claim is???....
You said you "personally" know. And you use the word "lifestyles". What does that mean? All gay people don't live the same "lifestlyes", just as all straight people don't live the same lifestyles. Do you mean that there are people who choose to try to live in heterosexual relationships despite their homosexual or bi-sexual orientation? Yes there are. Or that gay people who have lived in heterosexual relationships choose to accept their homosexual or bisexual orientation? Yes that happens all the time. Part of the "coming out" process for many homosexuals. For some it takes longer than others. And some go back in the closet if they face a lot of homophobia or bigotry or have been conditioned to believe that homosexuality is wrong or evil or whatever.
People can certainly choose their actions, but there is no reputable evidence available that people can change their sexual orientation successfully.
No that isnt what I mean. I personally know that homosexuality is not biological..I believe that people can CALL themselves whatever they want. People can call themselves homosexual but only have sex with women. They can CALL themselves straight and only have sex with men. They can call themselves asexual, and have sex with everybody. My belief is its only what they choose to identify themselves as, and the lifestyle the feel comfortable living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
There's plenty of evidence that biology plays a major role in the causes of sexual orientation. Just becaue you don't know about the evidence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Why do think the vast majority of health professional worldwide say that sexual orientation isn't a choice? And the vast majority of gay people themselves say the same thing. Are you claiming they are all liars or idiots or something?
You're showing a lack of understanding of genetics. And you keep focusing on "the" gene. There IS no "the" gene. No reputable scientist or organisation ever claimed there was. And no-one ever claimed that genetics was the sole cause of sexual orientation. There ARE other biological fields other than genetice..endocrinology, neurobiology etc. Stop reading those christian-based anti-gay sites with their "opinion articles" which keep misrepresenting what researchers in this field have "actually" said and read the actual studies themselves- from the horses
mouth so to speak... not horse's backside.
"OH DEAR quit reading Christian this!".."You're just another anti gay Christian so and so"...whatever...if thats the only thing you can do is hurl labels then you're even more of a joke than I initially thought you were. I have could find enough links to support my opinion as you have and could find to support yours..big deal? Hitting control + V after every word I write wont make me feel any different. I already know what I believe. Whether you choose to accept it or not is your problemo...lol
Im reading whatever has a different perspective from the other articles Ive read that stated that Homosexuality is biological. You see, I like to get more than one perspective and make my own decision, rather than have you and a bunch of other proselytizers think that barking louder will influence my ideology. Biology is biology...duh..what influences a person's endocrinology?..what influences a person's neurobiology?. Ive been saying this all along...a person's conditions and culture influence their sexuality, if not determine it altogether. Endocrinology is influenced by environment...neurobiology, is influenced by environment, and conditions. Im not understanding your point.
Years ago those same sciences concluded that Blacks were genetically inferior to whites...well, you can put all of your hope into those kind of findings but I dont...not even remotely. IMO genetics are what would cause homosexuality, otherwise it would just be considered another chemical imbalance that people seek to alter with drugs...obviously no one is doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
You're perfectly entitled to believe whatever you want to. But if you give your opinion, others are perfectly entitled to challenge you to back it up with credible evidence. Which you haven't been able to do.
Oh I get it...its the same theory as you're entitled to have beat someone to death, but others are perfectly entitled to challenge you to ask why. Gotcha.
They can "challenge" all they want to. I have no problem with that and I have stated my response to their "challenge" which is that source wars isnt an option for me..I said from the outset that I have no intentions of changing anyone's mind with an internet source war and I wont. If you'd like to see the information Ive read, you have fingers, google it yourself. Just like Ive already read must of the material others have posted about why homosexuality is biological. "Backing an argument up" with a bunch of links obviously isnt something I take much pride in...just like the links you posted..they are full of holes, but hey you're "backing it up" I guess..lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Did you not read the entire article you linked to? It's a Christian site and the article explicitly and clearly says that it's source is Peter LaBarberer who runs Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. It's not quite as rabid and looney as Fred Phelps with his godhatesfags website, but it comes very close. There is very little "truth" to be found on that website.
False allegations? You posted that link as a source to backup your opinions. I just pointed out what the site you linked to clearly stated as it's source for the article. The source is a known anti-gay hate group.
I didnt even post the link for the source, I dont know who wrote it. I posted it for the information within, because the information was commiserate with the research Ive read that found no biological cause for sexuality.
[quote=Jaymax;12647006]Ask yourself something. Why are you so willing to believe and take at face value the opinion articles found on religiously-biased anti-gay sites, and NOT those by all the scientists and researchers who have conducted and published peer-reviewed studies in this field in reputable scientific publications; the majority of health professionals worldwide; and organisations such as the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association? And their counterparts worldwide? Plus...the majority of gay people themselves?
Well I am willing to believe that the findings listed on the site I posted rather than the ABC's because, I know how fickled those organizations are and have been in the past. I know how those same organizations have also dug up some quack agenda driven "Scientist" to state that blacks are biologically inferior to others. And well, as we all know, there were and are plenty of blacks who will tell you that they are biologically inferior to everyone else..lol..
so there's that...and just a bunch of other stuff that compels me to disregard the "findings" of the various ABC's, and social sciences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
I don't think you are some "big bad anti-gay Christ guy who is saying that gay people should be terminated.". Perhaps it's just unfortunate that your opinions and claims reflect those that can only be found on those types of religiously biased anti-gay websites.
I think you just hadn't really looked into it much before and you just painted yourself into a corner.
If a person goes to a psychologist, it's usually because they have some problem(s) they want help with, is it not? If a person is homosexual but wants to try to live as a heterosexual in a heterosexual relationship...and is perfectly happy and content doing so...then why would they go to see a psychologist? If it's not causing a problem for the person...then fine.
My statement was made with the presumption that whoever was visiting the psychologist was apprehensive about changing their lifestyle. And I was drawing the correlation between someone who has learned to manage their depression being told that they are only managing it because x, y, z, but that they were still undergoing a major depressive episode, and therefore should continue taking medication --- and the correlation between someone who says they have reestablished their sexual preference, only to be told by someone that they are still gay, despite the fact that the client has stated he/she is no longer attracted to the same sex. Likewise, its considered unethical for someone to be badgered into staying straight or gay, because they are being told that they arent trying hard enough, or because they are being pressured to stay that way.
Thats why I said that someone determining their changed mental or sexual state based on what an outside party defines them as is detrimental I would think.
but most people have ongoing relationships with psychologists, even after they have started to manage their depression, bi polarity or whatever else. For this reason, I was saying that it would be
But if someone asks a psychologist if "praying away the gay" works because they are distressed about being gay or bi and want to be straight...then the psychologist is ethically bound to inform the client of the lack of evidence for success and the potential for harm. If the client still wants to try to "change" their sexual orientation, then at least the psychologist has presented them with the most up-to date, peer-reviewed, evidence based information and they can make informed decisions for themselves. They are not likely to "badger" the client or force their own personal or religious values and beliefs on the client. That's the sort of unethical practice "ex-gay" or "reparative" or SOCE "therapists" are more likely to do and is exactly what the APA warns about in their latest 2009 report on SOCE (Sexual orientation Change Efforts) which I linked to in an earlier post. [/quote]
thanks for clarifying that part...yea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Why do people bring religion into this? Because it's religious-based groups who are the main ones who spend inordinate amounts of time, energy and money to vilify homosexuals by spreading ignorance, misinformation, bigotry and hate. Try researching anti-gay websites or organisations and you'll find that the majority can be traced back to religious based conservative groups with an anti-homosexual agenda.
I cant lie, Ive noticed that too...I try to consider it an unfortunate coincidence..but through my own researching, I can see why many people perceive Christians as anti-gay, or why people perceive the anti-gay movement to be spearheaded by Christians...IMO there is a correlation for sure .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Weiner thing..LOL. That's funny. But why would "they" (who are "they" btw?) deem them innaccurate and unethical just because married "straight" men got boners? Maybe they just weren't so completely "straight" afterall.
This is what Ive been saying all along: I think everyone is bisexual to some degree.
If a person goes to a psychologist, it's usually because they have some problem(s) they want help with, is it not? If a person is homosexual but wants to try to live as a heterosexual in a heterosexual relationship...and is perfectly happy and content doing so...then why would they go to see a psychologist? If it's not causing a problem for the person...then fine.
My statement was made with the presumption that whoever was visiting the psychologist was apprehensive about changing their lifestyle. And I was drawing the correlation between someone who has learned to manage their depression being told that they are only managing it because x, y, z, but that they were still undergoing a major depressive episode, and therefore should continue taking medication --- and the correlation between someone who says they have reestablished their sexual preference, only to be told by someone that they are still gay, despite the fact that the client has stated he/she is no longer attracted to the same sex. Likewise, its considered unethical for someone to be badgered into staying straight or gay, because they are being told that they arent trying hard enough, or because they are being pressured to stay that way.
Thats why I said that someone determining their changed mental or sexual state based on what an outside party defines them as is detrimental, I would think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
But if someone asks a psychologist if "praying away the gay" works because they are distressed about being gay or bi and want to be straight...then the psychologist is ethically bound to inform the client of the lack of evidence for success and the potential for harm. If the client still wants to try to "change" their sexual orientation, then at least the psychologist has presented them with the most up-to date, peer-reviewed, evidence based information and they can make informed decisions for themselves. They are not likely to "badger" the client or force their own personal or religious values and beliefs on the client. That's the sort of unethical practice "ex-gay" or "reparative" or SOCE "therapists" are more likely to do and is exactly what the APA warns about in their latest 2009 report on SOCE (Sexual orientation Change Efforts) which I linked to in an earlier post.
thanks for clarifying that part...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Why do people bring religion into this? Because it's religious-based groups who are the main ones who spend inordinate amounts of time, energy and money to vilify homosexuals by spreading ignorance, misinformation, bigotry and hate. Try researching anti-gay websites or organisations and you'll find that the majority can be traced back to religious based conservative groups with an anti-homosexual agenda.
I cant lie, Ive noticed that too...I try to consider it an unfortunate coincidence..but through my own researching, I can see why many people perceive Christians as anti-gay, or why people perceive the anti-gay movement to be spearheaded by Christians...IMO there is a correlation for sure .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Weiner thing..LOL. That's funny. But why would "they" (who are "they" btw?) deem them innaccurate and unethical just because married "straight" men got boners? Maybe they just weren't so completely "straight" afterall.
This is what Ive been saying all along: I think everyone is bisexual to some degree.
Most transexuals do not consider themselves gay. They consider themselves to have been born the wrong gender physically.
"Most transvestites are heterosexual. Tapestry Magazine did a survey on the sexual orientation of its transvestite readers, and found that 75 percent of them were heterosexual."
yep must be, what if.................................you were a woman, lesbian then turned yourself into a male, but still like woman, are you now heterosexual?
Last edited by okccowboy; 01-28-2010 at 12:46 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
