Is homosexuality a choice?

[Guest]

Gay couples should be allowed to marry in the United States. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

Because the concept "marriage" is not compatible with the concept "homosexual."

But likewise polygamous triples should also be allowed to marry in the United States. I don't know how anyone can argue for the former and yet oppose the latter. Polygamous groups tried to get legal sanction for their alternate sexual lifestyle first, so I think they should be granted it first; or at the same time; if a law were formulated that made it legal for two or three adults of any gender combination to be married, I would support that law.

Its rare to see thorough amoralism of this kind expressed to clearly and forthrightly.

Note, though, that I am not saying I want polygamy to come back to the LDS Church. I don't think that will ever happen, and for the record I do not want that to happen. Rather I'm looking for vindication. I want the United States to admit (either explicitly or, by passing said law, implicitly) that it violated the LDS Church's rights by nearly legislating it out of existence for doing the moral equivalent of what gay couples are doing today.

The concept "homosexuality extinguishes the concept "marriage" if they are brought together and any kind of melding is attempted. Homosexual marriage has very little to do with homosexuals actually getting married (very, very few of the overall homosexual population, I predict, will ever avail themselves of the institution regardless) and everything with the final and irrevocable legitimation of homosexuality as equal, in a moral and cultural sense, to heterosexual marriage. Its about a thorough subversion and redefinition of gender, gender roles, and marriage as a concept at the core of civilization.

There are very few acids capable of eating away the foundations of civilization than domesticated, legitimized homosexuality and its culture (another, I would dare say, is postmodernism).

[_Droopy]

Droopy's claim that the efficacy of reparative therapy is "well established" is bold, indeed.

I "third" this CFR for peer-reviewed references (counting Buffalo's comment as the "second").

We're all still waiting, Droop.

Daniel2

http://narth.com/2011/10/2061/

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 52#preview

http://books.google.com/books?id=jKPWSs ... &q&f=false

[_Kevin Graham]

About Droopy's reference...

Detailed, five-year surveys of the ex-gay movement are much needed and long overdue, and so the raw data collected by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse are a welcome addition to available research. (For related research, search for books about ex-gay research by Ariel Shidlo or Jack Drescher.)

The conclusions based upon the Jones/Yarhouse data, unfortunately, appear biased: Both Jones and Yarhouse work at conservative Christian universities, and compromises in study design and execution were made in order to secure the cooperation of ex-gay members of Exodus International, an organization that claims to support people leaving homosexuality. This book quickly secured endorsements from ex-gay and antigay therapists, but support from mainstream mental-health professionals has thus far been lacking.

Watchdog web sites including Box Turtle Bulletin, Truth Wins Out and Ex-Gay Watch have found the following shortcomings, which I hope are addressed in future studies:

-- The study was conducted by two supporters of ex-gay ministries.

-- They originally sought 300 participants, but after more than a year of seeking to round up volunteers, they had to settle on only 98 participants.

-- During the course of the study, 25 dropped out, and one participant's answers were too incomplete to be used.

-- Of the remaining 72 only 11 reported "satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment." (direct quote). Some of these 11 remained primarily homosexual in attraction or, at best, bisexual, but were satisfied that they were just slightly more attracted to the opposite sex, or slightly less attracted to the same sex.

-- After the study ended, but before the book was finished, one of the 11 wrote to the authors to say that he lied -- he really wanted to change, had really hoped he had changed, and answered that he had changed. But he concluded that he hadn't, came out, and is now living as an openly gay man.

-- Dozens of participants experienced no lessening of same-sex attraction and no increase in opposite-sex attraction, but were classified as "success" stories by Jones and Yarhouse simply because they maintained celibacy -- something many conservative gay people already do.

-- The study purposely declined to interview any ex-gay survivors: people who claim to have been injured by ex-gay programs and who have formed support groups such as Beyond Ex-Gay. Despite -- or because of -- this omission, the authors of this study make the unfounded claim that there is little or no evidence of harm resulting from unproven, unsupervised, unlicensed, and amateur ex-gay counseling tactics.

In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it.

The raw data obtained from Jones' and Yarhouse's surveys will hopefully lead to greater understanding in future studies, despite these researchers' strained efforts to make failure to "change" sound like success.

============

Let's try not to laugh all at once.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yeah, I noticed that too, Kevin. I guess when Droopy read "well-established," he thought that it meant, "intellectually incestuous religious apologists who cite one another's work."

[_EAllusion]

You can read the BTB critique here:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/jo ... ouse-study

You have to scroll down for the very detailed critique. The very short of it is that this paper actually conforms to the APA task force's conclusions. Even after selecting a highly self-selected motivated group, the % of potential real changes in homosexual orientation were highly uncommon - numbering a few people -, and once controlled for confounding factors (bisexuality, reporter bias, etc.), may really be just a general reduction in sexual drive. Harm was inadequately controlled for.

[_MCB]

"success" stories by Jones and Yarhouse simply because they maintained celibacy -- something many conservative gay people already do.

just a general reduction in sexual drive.

I was going to respond to this, but then my internet went down.

I think this is the best answer for ANYONE who is unhappy (and maybe hurt) by unstable sexual relationships, and having conscience problems, regardless of sexual orientation. IMHO. It is nice to not have to worry.

Of course, that is contrary to Mormon teachings and culture.

[_lulu]

There are very few acids capable of eating away the foundations of civilization than domesticated, legitimized homosexuality and its culture (another, I would dare say, is postmodernism).

Yes, because Gays would have been honorable enought to just pay the tab.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire?id=D9U8V98O0

[_Droopy]

About Droopy's reference...

Detailed, five-year surveys of the ex-gay movement are much needed and long overdue, and so the raw data collected by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse are a welcome addition to available research. (For related research, search for books about ex-gay research by Ariel Shidlo or Jack Drescher.)

The conclusions based upon the Jones/Yarhouse data, unfortunately, appear biased: Both Jones and Yarhouse work at conservative Christian universities, and compromises in study design and execution were made in order to secure the cooperation of ex-gay members of Exodus International, an organization that claims to support people leaving homosexuality. This book quickly secured endorsements from ex-gay and antigay therapists, but support from mainstream mental-health professionals has thus far been lacking.

Watchdog web sites including Box Turtle Bulletin, Truth Wins Out and Ex-Gay Watch have found the following shortcomings, which I hope are addressed in future studies:

-- The study was conducted by two supporters of ex-gay ministries.

-- They originally sought 300 participants, but after more than a year of seeking to round up volunteers, they had to settle on only 98 participants.

-- During the course of the study, 25 dropped out, and one participant's answers were too incomplete to be used.

-- Of the remaining 72 only 11 reported "satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment." (direct quote). Some of these 11 remained primarily homosexual in attraction or, at best, bisexual, but were satisfied that they were just slightly more attracted to the opposite sex, or slightly less attracted to the same sex.

-- After the study ended, but before the book was finished, one of the 11 wrote to the authors to say that he lied -- he really wanted to change, had really hoped he had changed, and answered that he had changed. But he concluded that he hadn't, came out, and is now living as an openly gay man.

-- Dozens of participants experienced no lessening of same-sex attraction and no increase in opposite-sex attraction, but were classified as "success" stories by Jones and Yarhouse simply because they maintained celibacy -- something many conservative gay people already do.

-- The study purposely declined to interview any ex-gay survivors: people who claim to have been injured by ex-gay programs and who have formed support groups such as Beyond Ex-Gay. Despite -- or because of -- this omission, the authors of this study make the unfounded claim that there is little or no evidence of harm resulting from unproven, unsupervised, unlicensed, and amateur ex-gay counseling tactics.

In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it.

The raw data obtained from Jones' and Yarhouse's surveys will hopefully lead to greater understanding in future studies, despite these researchers' strained efforts to make failure to "change" sound like success.

============

Let's try not to laugh all at once.

Translation of this mass of twaddle: "I didn't know anything whatsoever about these studies until five minutes ago, but I must make up some criticisms of them and indulge myself in crass ad hominem circumstantial well poisoning because it upsets my world view, and it seems to justify conservative/Christian views of the possibility of change for motivated individuals, and I can't tolerate that because, as an apostate/leftist/communist/progressive/holier-than-thou intellectual dilettante I have to keep up appearances."

From now on anything Graham writes should come with subtitles.

[_Droopy]

-- Of the remaining 72 only 11 reported "satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment." (direct quote). Some of these 11 remained primarily homosexual in attraction or, at best, bisexual, but were satisfied that they were just slightly more attracted to the opposite sex, or slightly less attracted to the same sex.

-- After the study ended, but before the book was finished, one of the 11 wrote to the authors to say that he lied -- he really wanted to change, had really hoped he had changed, and answered that he had changed. But he concluded that he hadn't, came out, and is now living as an openly gay man.

-- Dozens of participants experienced no lessening of same-sex attraction and no increase in opposite-sex attraction, but were classified as "success" stories by Jones and Yarhouse simply because they maintained celibacy -- something many conservative gay people already do.

Here, again, for the Morlocks who missed it the first time (those beaties do tend to have problems keeping hair out of their eyes), were the studies main findings:

Success: Conversion: 23% (n = 14) of the sample reported substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and subsequent conversion to heterosexual attractions and functioning.

Success: Chastity: 30% (n = 18) reported that homosexual attraction was still present, but only incidentally or in a way that did not seem to bring distress, allowing them to live contentedly without overt sexual activity.

Continuing: 16% (n = 10) reported modest decreases in homosexual attraction, but were not satisfied with their degree of change and remained committed to the change process.

Nonresponse: 7% (n = 4) reported no significant sexual orientation change; they had not given up on the change process, but some were confused or conflicted about which direction to turn next.

Failure: Confused: 5% (n = 3) reported no significant sexual orientation change, and had given up on the change process, but without yet embracing a gay identity.

Failure: Gay identity: 20% (n = 12) had given up on the change process and embraced a gay identity.

A 23% conversion rate is excellent, and although small, is nothing more of less than what's ever been claimed for such therapy: it can work for motivated people, and especially those motivated by religious conviction, who are prepared to put themselves fully into such a program and are strongly focused on the change process.

[_Droopy]

You can read the BTB critique here:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/jo ... ouse-study

You have to scroll down for the very detailed critique. The very short of it is that this paper actually conforms to the APA task force's conclusions. Even after selecting a highly self-selected motivated group, the % of potential real changes in homosexual orientation were highly uncommon - numbering a few people -, and once controlled for confounding factors (bisexuality, reporter bias, etc.), may really be just a general reduction in sexual drive. Harm was inadequately controlled for.

No one's ever claimed anything other than "a few people." That's all I've ever asserted. The fact that you now have to admit to the reality at hand here, kicking and screaming though you may be, is a step forward. (As an aside, the claim that harm was inadequately controlled for appears to be far too subjective and fraught with interpretational/ideological baggage to be a very useful criticism. "Harm" in what sense? Who determines what "harm" is and how could deeply subjective factors as to its interpretation be controlled for?).

Secondly, I can do the ad hominem circumstantial thing too, and match Graham point for point, if I want to (although, unlike Kevin, I understand that the ad hominem circumstantial is a fallacy of reasoning).

boxturtlebullitin is a pro-homosexual activist website. As being a Christian or being associated with Christian educational institutions discredits one's research on its face, the same must be true of the gander.