Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible, New Research Says

[mens_sana]

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

i would like to share my views with you, if its possible

Thank you for sharing your views — views which you share with a number of people who have no understanding of sexual orientation and whose constant oh-so-well-meaning, patronizing platitudes do nothing but reiterate an invincible ignorance.

lots of love

Not really, you're just kidding yourself.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

2)science hes proved that lesbianism and homosexuality have a very dangerous effect on both the life of people and society at large. u can go and surf in the internet about this. so here we arent dealing with amatter of personal freedom.

Got to say, this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on CR. Science has never made any such claim so far as I'm aware.

There is a whole portfolio of accusations that can be made against religious belief on how adversely they have affected human history. The apologists might claim it is not religion itself that has been adverse, as much as ignorance and intolerance which dwells within religious belief. I think the question of sexual intolerance is easily among the worst of these.

While Christianity is defined by a leader who lived with prostitutes, tax collectors, and lepers - the basest people of society as perceived then - those who follow in His name instead seem to spend more time in condemnation of such people, than embracing them.

It kind of makes a lot of Christian's stand closer to the very Pharisee's who criticised their inspiration, rather than inpsired by Him.

I can't believe I've ever read of a single example of where a war was fought for homosexuality, where a people were enslaved because of homosexuality, or where genocide has ever been committed in the name of homosexuality.

Yet somehow some people still see homosexuality as a larger threat than prejudice and intolerance. Personally, I wouldn't agree.

2c.

[bob x]

We will simply have to agree to disagree.

Gators and Wolverines play Jan 1st I think it is. Go Gators!

Go Wolverines!
On THAT subject, at least, we will definitely have to agree to disagree...
On the other, I would like to at least make one last effort to clarify what I have been saying, since I am no longer even sure whether we DO disagree on anything or not. To take a non-emotionally-charged example, you say you have a choice to make coffee yourself, or trust others to make it-- and of course you always have the choice not to drink coffee at all. Now, some people do not react to caffeine at all; some react to it badly. Everyone, regardless of their particular biochemistry, has a choice to make coffee or not, to drink it or not; but it hardly the same choice for people with different biochemistry. What you and they do NOT have any choice about is this: you cannot "decide" that you are going to be non-responsive to caffeine, if you are caffeine-responsive, or that you are not going to be allergic to caffeine, if you are.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Got to say, this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on CR. Science has never made any such claim so far as I'm aware...

Thanks for responding to this claim, Brian, in such a well-articulated way. That part of the post jumped out at me and crawled under my skin, and I appreciate that you have expressed very concisely and intelligently a view similar to what I would have posted.

This entire thread has left me with a sort of "why bother?" attitude towards it, although LGBT issues are really close to home for me. I appreciate you stepping in here and clarifying some CR community standards as well as pointing out some of the worst hypocrisies and smug attitudes of some who believe Christianity must necessarily be homophobic.

Peace,
Pathless

[path_of_one]

Yes, thank you. I bailed out a while ago after becoming too tired to contribute any more and also having nothing new to say, since I said it all up front in my first one or two posts to this thread.

To the best of my knowledge as an anthropologist, I concur that there are no legitimate scientific claims that homosexuality is damaging to society. In fact, there were societies that survived for much longer than many modern nation-states in which homosexuality was the norm.

Whether or not someone thinks homosexual actions are sinful, I really can't stand the horrible ignorance and false science that people promote about human sexuality (or any other topic, for that matter). There is plenty of room for debate in the realm of real, verifiable information without branching off into pseudoscience and falsity.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Yet somehow some people still see homosexuality as a larger threat than prejudice and intolerance. Personally, I wouldn't agree.

I cannot stress enough how much I agree with this. There are far greater threats to life and civilization, prejudice and intolerance being among them, and I would add willful ignorance.

Originally Posted by bob x

Go Wolverines!
On THAT subject, at least, we will definitely have to agree to disagree...

At least we've got the Heiseman (sp?) trophy winner,

Originally Posted by bob x

On the other, I would like to at least make one last effort to clarify what I have been saying, since I am no longer even sure whether we DO disagree on anything or not. To take a non-emotionally-charged example, you say you have a choice to make coffee yourself, or trust others to make it-- and of course you always have the choice not to drink coffee at all. Now, some people do not react to caffeine at all; some react to it badly. Everyone, regardless of their particular biochemistry, has a choice to make coffee or not, to drink it or not; but it hardly the same choice for people with different biochemistry. What you and they do NOT have any choice about is this: you cannot "decide" that you are going to be non-responsive to caffeine, if you are caffeine-responsive, or that you are not going to be allergic to caffeine, if you are.

I understand what you are saying, and on a level I can agree. But a child is born a blank slate. At some point experience and teaching have to factor into the equation.

Let's say, trying to stay with your example here, that a person was born with a strong preference for caffeine, but while growing up was taught to be revulsed by anything with caffeine. That person, if I understand you, is an unfulfilled caffeine addict. Whereas I believe that person to conduct themselves as though caffeine were "sinful," the thought of consuming caffeine being repulsive.

This assumes on both our parts that what you say actually is true, that sexuality is a genetic trait, which is something genetic science simply does not support at this time.

Personally, I believe sexualty is a learned trait. You disagree. OK.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

To the best of my knowledge as an anthropologist, I concur that there are no legitimate scientific claims that homosexuality is damaging to society. In fact, there were societies that survived for much longer than many modern nation-states in which homosexuality was the norm.

Agreed. However, this is here and now. There is a political move afoot to normalize such behavior, but we are in a politically transitive state right now. Which is why the "I was made this way" argument gains so much credence.

In time, probably not in my lifetime, I will be vindicated...but only after normalization takes place in the local politics. People eventually will begin to see the shortcomings of the "I was made this way" argument when it is applied across the board.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Whether or not someone thinks homosexual actions are sinful, I really can't stand the horrible ignorance and false science that people promote about human sexuality (or any other topic, for that matter). There is plenty of room for debate in the realm of real, verifiable information without branching off into pseudoscience and falsity.

I speak for no one but myself. I think there have been some pretty reprehensible comments made to Bob by others here, and I think Bob made some rather admirable replies in response to them.

Since it seems a concern that my particular arguments will be used ignorantly by those with nefarious purposes in mind, let me conclude by saying my "science" is not false or pseudo...unless one considers Pavlov, J.B. Watson and B.F. Skinner as false / pseudo science. Let the nefarious people pay their tuition and do their homework to sort out what I am saying.

[path_of_one]

Just for the record, in case there is any confusion-

I think the science is most indicative of human sexuality being both genetic predisposition and socially learned. Just like practically all of human behavior.

I agree that "I was made this way" is not an appropriate carte blanche for all behavior. But of course the debate is where to draw the line. Personally, I draw it where it begins to infringe on others' rights and/or clearly harm others. So, rape and pedophilia are not to be tolerated by society and those people are to be confined by law. Consensual homosexuality arguably fails this test, so it goes in my category of "none of my business and live and let live."

I wasn't arguing that "I was made this way" is even a good argument for or against our treatment of homosexuals. My argument goes more like- it is not harming me or others, there is no indication it causes societies to fail or groups to be harmed in general, so I believe whether people are gay by choice or design, homosexuals deserve equality in treatment, respect, and rights. I guess I just circumvent the "I was made this way" argument all together. It doesn't mean anything in my view of things whether it is right or not.

And juan, I wasn't referring to you when I spoke out against pseudoscience. I understand where you are coming from and there is plenty of evidence that some homosexuals are so through social learning (though there is also much evidence that some are so despite social learning to the contrary). I personally disagree with theorists who think children are born blank slates, and I think much of the modern evidence agrees with me, but I don't believe that such a stance is pseudoscience. Just not the side of the debate I happen to agree with. I was referring to dialogue is best's post that there is scientific evidence that homosexuality harms societies (which, of course, was backed only by google searching, which I'm sure we agree is not verifiable as a resource). There are a lot of reasons I do not believe children are blank states, both spiritually/religiously and scientifically, but I respect your stance on it.

Peace,
Path/Kim

[bob x]

"But a child is born a blank slate."
Like Path, I strongly disagree with that viewpoint.

"This assumes on both our parts that what you say actually is true, that sexuality is a genetic trait, which is something genetic science simply does not support at this time."
Nobody really knows much of anything, at this point in time, and I doubt the questions will be resolved in my lifetime. I am not committed to any particular theory, that it is genetic, or due to intrauterine hormones, or a matter of early childhood development, or whatever; but I do insistently reject one particular theory, that conscious choice plays any role, since if that were true, I would know about it. And if someone hypothetically comes along to say "It was a conscious choice in my case", all I could respond would be "Then your case isn't like mine".

"...unless one considers Pavlov, J.B. Watson and B.F. Skinner as false / pseudo science"
I don't know anything about Pavlov beyond the doggy-dinner-bell story, but Watson and Skinner were borderline-lunatic, not what I would consider respectable sources. Besides, they stood for a rigid mechanical determinism which I thought was totally antithetical to your philosophy.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bob x

...Watson and Skinner were borderline-lunatic, not what I would consider respectable sources. Besides, they stood for a rigid mechanical determinism which I thought was totally antithetical to your philosophy.

Point being? Should I discount someone's views because of their tendencies and preferences? Is that not the essence of ad-hominem?

Even a blind pig can find a truffle now and then...

Besides, if Watson and Skinner truly were "borderline-lunatic," then they are lunatic geniouses whose research impacts on the daily lives of every human in the developed world, especially those who watch t.v. or use a computer. Watson wasn't about ego stroking, he was about id stroking, which comes back around to stroking our base animal nature. Skinner was about teaching that animal nature new tricks, which demonstrates the *possibility* of "rising" above a base nature, of being more than one's genetic coding. Both were about manipulation of the psyche.

Pavlov showed that animals can be trained to make associations they might not otherwise. Both Pavlov and Skinner demonstrated the reward and punishment association with behaviors. Why cannot that reward or punishment be self-administered? That is where Watson went, self-gratification, and how to manipulate it for a profit. Quite successfully, I might add, lunatic or no.

Seems to me these guys managed to put a scientific spin on what religions have long known about manipulation of the psyche for social cohesion, by using the tools of guilt/ shame and joy/ ecstasy/ awe as well as playing on the sense of belonging to a preferential clique.

Of course, its just a scad more involved to demonstrate how this applies to overcoming social taboos through reward reinforcement, id stroking and self-gratification. Even then, I would expect disagreement with my assessment. But it *is* based in established psychological science. And before we take up objections to using animal models like dogs, pigeons and chickens, may I remind how often animal models are called in for support by the "other" side.

The renegade challenge of the angry young man to push the boundaries of the social moral envelope is quite common, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of us have flirted with various social taboos in our minds. Some of us may even test the physical manifestation of those taboos in one form or other. Most of us return to the fold satisfied that it is for the collective better to avoid the established taboos. A handful of us find some sense of enjoyment/ fulfillment not otherwise available within the social moral envelope, and continue to seek that self-gratification outside that envelope in the realm of the taboo. There is a certain excitement attached to doing so, and a certain romantic charm that is often associated with those who do. The rebel without a cause, the bad boy biker, the robin hood as examples.

Of course, our prisons are also full of others who made similar challenges. Challenging the social moral envelope is not without risk, it is those perils that give the challenge the adrenaline thrill for those who "survive." It takes a great deal to shift a society from the stasis of an established moral envelope to widen to include some or other of its long time taboos. Learning through the experience of the taboo, reinforced with self-gratification and the adrenaline rush or the thrill to reward the behavior, entices the taboo seeker to return. Over time as the experience is repeated and reinforced it normalizes in that individual. Ergo, learned behavior. The taboo thought does not exist only in the mind of the taboo seeker, it exists in others (probably many others) as well, who choose for various reasons not to pursue that particular taboo. Taboo fantasies abound, but few actually dare to go there.

Even were this particular taboo in question to find inclusion and normalcy within the current social moral envelope, I would still find it to be an unwise choice. That is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Details in my upcoming book...only $19.95...get 'em while they last!...available at all fine second-hand and junk stores everywhere.

[I, Brian]

Interesting analogy by Bob - the study that originated this discussion seemed to suggest that being able to make the decision to drink coffee determined whether someone could stop being caffeine sensitive or intolerant, which just doesn't come across as scientifically valid.

Interestingly enough, recent research suggests even food preferences could be strongly influenced by genetic factors:
BBC NEWS | Health | Diet choices 'written in genes'

The Kings College researchers looked at a total of more than 3,000 female twins aged between 18 and 79, working out their broad preferences using five different dietary "groups".

These included diets heavy in fruit and vegetables, alcohol, fried meat and potatoes, and low-fat products or low in meat, fish and poultry.

Their results, published in the journal Twin Research and Human Genetics, suggested that between 41% and 48% of a person's leaning towards one of the food groups was influenced by genetics.

The strongest link between individual liking and genes involved a taste for garlic and coffee.

...

Professor Jane Wardle, from University College, said that the findings, and other similar research, pointed to genetics playing a "moderate" part in the development of preferred foods.

She said that it was possible that genes involved with taste, or the "reward" chemicals released by the body in response to certain foods, might play a role.

"People have always made the assumption that food choices are all due to environmental factors during life, but it now seems this isn't the case.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Interesting analogy by Bob - the study that originated this discussion seemed to suggest that being able to make the decision to drink coffee determined whether someone could stop being caffeine sensitive or intolerant, which just doesn't come across as scientifically valid.

Interestingly enough, recent research suggests even food preferences could be strongly influenced by genetic factors:
BBC NEWS | Health | Diet choices 'written in genes'

I think, someone is calling me...yep, gotta go weld up a bulkhead...gotta have bulkheads in order to keep fresh water from rushing out, or sea water from rushing in...yeah, that's why piping was invented, for "ballast", between the two (waters)...

[greymare]

Q???? have you been drinking your ballast water???LOL

[dailogue is the best]

hello everybody
i m not pretending when i talked about the negative health effect of homosexuality...we are discussing and discussion needs logic and reason....here ia a site where u can go and read about this issue> Family Research Council: Sunday, December 16, 2007 "IS01B1"
thank you

[path_of_one]

I wasn't saying you were pretending that a few people with PhDs take that stance (and they are generally people who are not regarded as reliable scientists by the rest of the academic community). I was saying that biased websites like that fly in the face of many, many more scientists, who are considered much more reliable sources of information and are not a part of institutions that are primarily religiously motivated, as opposed to motivated by the pursuit of science.

Also, many of the negative impacts the article states (such as promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases) could be just as easily applied to heterosexual relationships. That is, these negative impacts are a result of irresponsible sexual practices (i.e., not using a condom, testing partners before having sex, limiting one's sexual relationships, etc.) and not directly related to homosexuality. So the logic in much of the article is faulty.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

hello everybody
i m not pretending when i talked about the negative health effect of homosexuality...we are discussing and discussion needs logic and reason....here ia a site where u can go and read about this issue> Family Research Council: Sunday, December 16, 2007 "IS01B1"
thank you

It's a Christian pressure group, so just their reporting on an issue neither makes it a fact, nor scientific, simply political opinion.

Of course, if they have anything published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals then feel free to link to it.