Masters of Sex? William Masters and Virginia Johnson appearing on "Meet the Press" in 1979
Image: courtesy Basic Books
A British survey published last month found that one in 25 therapists would assist gay and bisexual patients attempting to convert to heterosexuality. That's despite the fact that many medical groups, including the American Medical Association, have for years condemned such practices, saying they don't work and can actually cause harm.
It may not be surprising that Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson and televangelist pastor Jerry Falwell, among many others, have supported programs designed to convert homosexuals away from "sin" and into the arms of God-fearing heterosexuality. But what may surprise you is one of the research sources cited by the Catholic Medical Association in 2006 when it declared that science "counters the myth that same-sex attraction is genetically predetermined and unchangeable, and offers hope for prevention and treatment."
That source? William Masters and Virginia Johnson, a husband–wife team who are perhaps the world's most famous sex researchers.
Back in 1979, on Meet The Press and countless other TV appearances, Masters and Johnson touted their book, Homosexuality in Perspective—a 14-year study of more than 300 homosexual men and women—hoping to build on their groundbreaking sex studies of heterosexuals that had helped ignite America's sexual revolution. The results seemed impressive: Of the 67 male and female patients with "homosexual dissatisfaction," only 14 failed in the initial two-week "conversion" or "reversion" treatment. (The 12 cases of attempted "conversion" were for men and women who had always believed they were homosexual and were troubled by it, while the 55 "reversion" cases were in people who believed their homosexuality was more fleeting.) During five years of follow-up, their success rate for both groups was better than 70 percent.
But were Masters and Johnson's claims of "conversion" in those 12 cases -- nine men and three women -- even true?
Prior to the book's publication, doubts arose about the validity of their case studies. Most staffers never met any of the conversion cases during the study period of 1968 through 1977, according to research I've done for my new book Masters of Sex. Clinic staffer Lynn Strenkofsky, who organized patient schedules during this period, says she never dealt with any conversion cases. Marshall and Peggy Shearer, perhaps the clinic's most experienced therapy team in the early 1970s, says they never treated homosexuals and heard virtually nothing about conversion therapy.
When the clinic's top associate, Robert Kolodny, asked to see the files and to hear the tape-recordings of these "storybook" cases, Masters refused to show them to him. Kolodny—who had never seen any conversion cases himself—began to suspect some, if not all, of the conversion cases were not entirely true. When he pressed Masters, it became ever clearer to him that these were at best composite case studies made into single ideal narratives, and at worst they were fabricated.
Eventually Kolodny approached Virginia Johnson privately to express his alarm. She, too, held similar suspicions about Masters' conversion theory, though publicly she supported him. The prospect of public embarrassment, of being exposed as a fraud, greatly upset Johnson, a self-educated therapist who didn't have a college degree and depended largely on her husband's medical expertise.
With Johnson's approval, Kolodny spoke to their publisher about a delay, but it came too late in the process. "That was a bad book," Johnson recalled decades later. Johnson said she favored a rewriting and revision of the whole book "to fit within the existing [medical] literature," and feared that Bill simply didn't know what he was talking about. At worst, she said, "Bill was being creative in those days" in the compiling of the "gay conversion" case studies.
See what we're tweeting about
120 Comments
Add CommentThe article illustrates how warped personal beliefs can be attempted to be passed off as bad science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn many ways their "study" is like the SciAm website.
Why would you want to "cure" them anyway? There are plenty of heterosexuals in this world already. What's wrong with being different except that the major religions of the world want the heteros to produce more adherents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy sister is a case in point. She has happily heterosexual for many years. After a bad marriage she found and fell in love with a woman and then spent 5 or 6 years as a lesbian. After a breakup and she found and fell in love with a man again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs she gay? Is she heterosexual?
I believe firmly that some gay people are born that way and some become that way. I fully support them either way.
I am not sure that I would call my sister "cured". But I would say that she used to be homosexual and now is not.
Could the study have includes some people like my sister?
i like to think of it as population control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe need more.
Oh brother. The only thing more ridiculous than people obsessed with their mating problems. ...are the people obsessed with others' mating problems... whom they don't even know!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverybody needs to mind their own damn business. Clang their genitals together in as many combinations as they want, and get over it already!
It's humping! It's not rocket science!
The article underscores the bias of research studies into homosexuality, which continues wide and deep even today. Just try to get money for such research or have research data published. Good luck! There are other reasons as well. The religious right spends more than 10 million dollars a years on bogus studies, some of them quite pathetic: such as, proving that masterbastion causes anemia because it takes so much blood to produce semem - - one of the reasons homosexuals have bad health. According to Pat Robertson, HIV is a homoesexual disease caused by bacterium once found mostly in blacks. Nevertheless, most recent studies strongly demonstrate that homosexuals have brain differences, particulary at the cellular level. Reliance on twin studies received a recent blow with the discovery that monzygotic twins (identical) are not the same genetically, as once assumed. The most compelling new studies, however, show that identical twins, where one is homosexual and the other is not, experience divergent levles of the male hormone testosterone, caused by the stronger fetus absorbing more of the hormone. So, anyone trying to make sense out of the thousands of studies since Masters and Johnson must carefully weed out defective research design, those that have not be replicated and the biases of those who funded the research, as well as who designed and published it. For those who have the training, the rewards are compelling and point to a combination of genetic and prebirth chemical variables. Of course, those without these markers can also choose homosexual oriention, as I am sure some do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious advocates on the right see being gay as sin, in othe words, a wrong choice. Gay rights advocates see being gay to something a person is born with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuanced discussion and genuine scientific exploration are drowned out by this political war. For instance, little effort is made to follow up on studies which suggest that if one twin is gay the other has about a 50% chance of being gay. Are these studies right? Is the intra-utero environment different for the twins? Do events after birth play an important role in determining whether a twin is gay? Do events after birth only play an important role in determining whether a twin will be out of the closet? These questions cry out for research, but unfortunately politics has come to the fore.
Christians who have issues with homosexuality should have a look at the position statement of Conservative Jewish rabbis who look at what the Hebrew Bible really says, and what commentators have thought it meant. Only one homosexual act is mentioned in the Torah, sodomy. It's silent on all else, but that never stopped the learned filling the gap with their opinions. It seems several different points of view were current and St. Paul, as a Rabbi, was brought up with prepackaged views, not instant truth delivered by a divine messenger on this particular issue. Nothing he says in the Christian Bible is new or different to what some rabbis had already opined on the issue. Perhaps it's time Christians looked further afield for their understanding of Torah and listened a bit closer to what their historical brothers in the faith of Yahweh are saying now. Sexual immorality is the issue - if you're gay or straight - and needs to be avoided by both orientations. Wanting to convert gays to being straight does nothing about the sin on both sides. It's a tough call in this age of easy gratification, but both orientations are called to chastity, not "curing". Focussing on someone else's sin, and not tackling your own, is condemned a lot more harshly in the Christian Bible than any sexual sin. So stop the judgemental attitude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere are some studies,I can't recall their origin at this time, that say the 2nd born son is more likely to be gay than the 1st born and less likely than the 3rd and so on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt really doesn't matter.... aren't we supposed to be free to choose?It's really about freedom,politically.It's been in every society ,bar none.I'd apply ockham's razor...I bet the house it naturally occurs.
I,m gonna be a sexist here and say that as a heterosexual male( the group that seem to have the biggest problem with homosexuality) we should encourage more men to be gay....there would be less compitition for the available women.If I ever get shipwrecked on an island with 20 people (10 women and 10 men) I hope at least 4 of the men are gay and all 10 women are straight.
Joshzilla: what about gay for pay? haha jk
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is a great video on you tube called "homosexuality in animals" its even made by National Geographic- i think that answers all these comments questions
however it does reinforce another thing humans don't like to think of themselves as "ANIMALS"
which btw are all going extinct right now so that might be a little bit more important, gays wont have any more pride floats or drag queens with out a planet to do it in
www.joshzilla.com
www.myspace.com/joshzilla
The problem society has with homosexuality is not what goes on in the bedroom privacy, but the unproper conduct of a few individuals outdoors. Just "don't tell". After all, sex is not such a big deal anymore than loving relationship. Who should
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscare about one's favorite dish? The bonobos don't, and they are happy.
The worlds number one problem is over-population, homosexuals do not contribute to this problem, leave them alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHomosexuality is not a sin it is a result of evolution, it has even been observed in animals. Perhaps as populations increase, evolutionary forces create a greater proportion of homosexual individuals to lower population growth.
J. Milton Stout:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see you in print more often. Please we need rational people making more comments. It is delightful to read comments like yours.
Join comment forums, ignore the idiots, and have your say. It matters.
I knew three gays, two male one female, who successfully converted back to heterosexuality via psychotherapy in the 1970's and they are still hetero and happy, plus none of their Gay friends thought anything of it then. Why has the Gay Movement become so dogmatic and intolerant on the issue. If someone wants to try to change, let them! It's not like they are asking for sex change surgery which is alot more extreme.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack in the 70's I knew three Gays, two male, one female who converted successfully to heterosexuality, and today are still hetero and happy. Their gay friends thought nothing of it and made no fuss. Everyone remained friends. Why has the current Gay Movement become so intolerant?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am the author of last two entries above. I didn't think that the first one had gone through so wrote the second - sorry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides all the biases, how much does bisexuality complicate things? I wonder what the % of the population is bisexual? I know it must be extremely high in the evangelical community because they think sexual preference is a choice. My preference isn't a choice and I seriuosly doubt could be cured of my heterosexuality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoshzilla:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's the plan! You figured it out! All the religions of the world are in cahoots together to kill the planet to end homosexuality once and for all!
Haha. But on a serious note, it really does not matter. I don't even think the lines are as simple as homosexuality vs heterosexuality. Some people are just born naturally open minded. I don't consider myself either. I always thought to myself "if I fall in love with someone, no matter what or who they are, then that's all that matters" so I was neither heterosexual nor homosexual. I simply determined that whatever I felt was right. I ended up marrying a woman, and so am technically heterosexual, but if her brain were in a male's body then my feelings wouldn't change, and I'd be considered homosexual.
I think the media's too caught up worrying about religion and "morality" than to just go and say "hey, they're happy. why complain?" if they're not happy, WHY are they not happy? Is it because they feel obligated to be something they are not or is it because they feel they are being something they are not? The former is guilt and the latter is an identity problem.
Guilt should be thrown out the window and identity issues should be helped by psychiatrists. Guilt should not be treated as an identity issue.
I'm a 66 year old Gay man. One person's life experience does not prove anything scientifically; but for what it's worth, here is my opinion: I've known that I'm Gay for as long as I can remember. I've felt a strong sexual attraction to other males going back to my earliest memories. I definitely believe I was born this way, that my brain was pre-wired with this inclination. Nobody ever tried to influence me to be homosexual... it was just the opposite. Growing up in the nineteen fifties, all the input I got from my parents, peers, schools, the media, religion, and society in general told me that this was the most despised and perverted of all the taboos. I was so repressed, that I was nearly thirty years old before I had my first sexual experience with a man, and it was the most liberating event of my life. I tired it earlier with a woman and was not turned on in the least; it was just a mechanical process of going through the motions. Life would have been so much easier if I could only have been born heterosexual. But I am the way I am, and you can no more convert me to heterosexuality, than I can convert a totally heterosexual person to homosexuality. Sexuality is not something you can change like your underwear, it is an integral part of human personality. There may be a sexual continuum, where I fall at one extreme, and some others fall more in the middle, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that we are all born with our sexuality, it is not learned, and therefore it can not be unlearned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswiffleball: I believe you've caught on to what most seem to overlook in these 'conversion' discussions. I have long believed that, no matter what their religious beliefs, any homosexuals who have successfully 'converted' to heterosexuality are actually bisexuals who have reverted to repressing and/or denying their attraction for the same sex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you need to examine what is meant by Do not judge more carefully. Do not judge is not ment to advocate, condone or even ignore sin in others. Do not judge means examine your own motives before approaching your brother about his sin and do so in a loving manner. In this reguard the churched have fallen severly short and given Christians (True followers of Christ) a bad reputation as has happened for centuries. No other group besides Christians is held to account by non believers for those who claim to be followers of their ideals and morals and are not IE Wolves in sheeps clothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the note of homosexuality you may also want to do a bit more research into the biblical perspective. While there is only one super sin (Denying the Holy Spirit), homosexuality is clearly addressed in both the old and new testaments. It is the only thing that is mentioned for those who continually deny God and is specifically called an abomination before God.
Romans 1:25-27 (New International Version)
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
telrunya: If there is a god it is the bible that is an abomination in his eyes since the bible denies the validity of 90% of creation. Why anyone would want to research into such a ridiculous text is beyond reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisskellmeyer: Your argument concerening STDs, disease and pedophilia is totally unrelated to your conclusion about pathology. My bias precludes me from considering straw man arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am glad that the Masters and Johnson quackery is being exposed. It always seemed suspicious to me that they never produced any actual people to verify their claims. Even the "ex-gay" movement comes up with some sad cases saying they used to sinful homosexuals but are now God-fearing homosexuals. (We soon hear that they are arrested in men's rooms are outed for being seen in gay bars.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, the higher rates of substance abuse, STDs, intra-relationship violence, pedophilia, etc. are all unrelated to homosexuality, just like cirrhosis of the liver and fatal driving accidents are unrelated to alcoholism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm buyin' it.
Check the stats.
1-2% of the population is homosexual.
Homosexuals make up 30% of the pedophiles.
1-2% of drivers are ticked for DUI.
30% of fatal accidents involve drunk drivers.
So homosexuality has no more to do with pedophilia than alcoholism has to do with drunk drivers.
If that's a strawman argument, then I hope you don't belong to MADD either.
skellmeyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the increased pedophilia that you talk about is 100% wrong. 40 years of US Government study proves that out of every 100 pedophiles only 1 of them is gay. That means that per capita, straights are 5 times more likely to be a pedophile than gays are.
The saddest part is that the victims of the pedophilia tend to be at least 10% gay. This says that you straights are much more likely to be a pedophile and that gay children have a much higher rate of being abused by pedophiles.
skellmeyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the increased pedophilia that you talk about is 100% wrong. 40 years of US Government study proves that out of every 100 pedophiles only 1 of them is gay. That means that per capita, straights are 5 times more likely to be a pedophile than gays are.
The saddest part is that the victims of the pedophilia tend to be at least 10% gay. This says that you straights are much more likely to be a pedophile and that gay children have a much higher rate of being abused by pedophiles.
JessicaK,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisskellmeyer isn't interested in arguing reason or logic, he just wants to throw out facts and try to sound all science-y.
What skellmeyer fails to do is show CAUSATION as opposed to CORRELATION. Just because some pedophiles are gay doesn't mean that being gay CAUSED their pedophilia. However, drinking is a necessary precondition or cause for drunk driving.
But don't bother arguing with him. Homosexuals will always be THE problem to him, regardless of facts, logic or reason. He probably obsesses about it a little too much (brings to mind a certain Lady MacBeth quote), but that's a separate, lengthy discussion, I'm sure...
kelan108, would you care to document your claim? No one else has been able to confirm people who endured "conversion therapy" actually "changed" and were still "changed' as many years later as you claim. That would be big scientific news!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is, of course, if you can prove it. The groups that claim they can "Cure" gay and lesbian Americans have consistently refused to allow scientists to interview anyone at all they claim is "changed" except their spokesmodels. The media has reported more than once that many of their leaders were proven to have returned to a normal gay or lesbian lifestyle.
We'll be waiting for your documentation of your claim.
Where are the studies of those of us that were "cured" from heterosexuality? According to my family and friends, I was "straight" until I turned 22 (for 3 of those years, I was also married to a man). After being set free from Fundementalist religion, patriarchal society, and self-hate I was finally able to admit who I was - a lesbian. Kinda explained the disastrous honeymoon and the three years follwoing it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're right, causation and correlation are not the same thing. For instance, I don't know why people think drunk driving causes accidents. It could be that people who like to drink simply also have lousy motor control. But, really, if you have a marker for an activity, it doesn't really matter if its caused or just correlated - there's a way to more easily identify the behaviour, and only a fool would deny it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd of course it is absurd to think that people who define themselves by their sexual behaviour, that is, homosexuals, would spend a lot of time sexually abusing children at a rate several thousand times higher than the general population. After all, they just use their own sexual behaviour as self-identity - it's not like they're FIXATED on sex or anything.
Finally, the great thing about homosexuality is, supporters of the lifestyle always try to paint opponents as homosexuals.
Apparently, supporters of homosexuality think that charging someone with being homosexual is a slur. I've always found the closet homophobia amongst homosexual supporters to be quite amusing.
Homosexuality and alcoholism are both pathological activities. The health stats demonstrate it - you don't need somebody's god book to figure it out. Just look at the CDC figures.
Or, if you prefer, you could be like the university professors who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.
Your choice: be a scientist or be an idealogue.
100% wrong? Where are you getting your research?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4
percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF
Investigators, 1992; Billy et al., 1993; Fay et al., 1989;
Johnson et al., 1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of
men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al., 1999;
Gebhard et al., 1965; Mohr et al., 1964). Thus, the rate of
homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles.
Ray Blanchard, et al., Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual
Orientation in Pedophiles, Archives of Sexual Behavior 29
(2000): 464.
The stark imbalance between homosexual and heterosexual child molestations was confirmed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants into three groups: 152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only). In other words, 25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles or 41 percent if those who molest girls as well as boys are included.
Ibid.
There are fewer homosexual offenders in raw terms, sure, but men attracted to boys tend to have dozens to hundreds more victims than men attracted to girls.
If you want to argue that this isn't homosexuality, but pedophilia, all I can say is the same-sex attraction produces a heck of a lot more victims than opposite-sex attraction.
And I'm glad you pointed out that victims tend to become homosexual. Pedophilia is not only pathological, they use their own pathology to generate more pathology in society. The homosexual community even has a special name for these kind of people: "chickenhawks."
Skellmeyer, it would be nice if you could back up your statistics, with, say, EVIDENCE. IF you had evidence, you can more use Science to dscriminate than you can religion. According to the CDC, African American men are 7x more likely to have syphillis (http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/race.htm). Shall we take away their rights? And then go here (http://ndas.cwla.org/data_stats/access/predefined/Report.asp?PageMode=1&%20ReportID=490&%20GUID={A90D8A83-FB22-4CA9-9CA5-ADAB26F978D5}#Table) and you will see that the highest perpetrators of sexual abuse are PARENTS. So...no one should have any rights. Scientifically speaking. Except the white, non-propagating people. Sooo glad that I fit into that category.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisColinATL,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right. You know what they say, those that rail against homosexuality the most are closeted miserable homos. He can't back up even one of his claims. Now "skellmeyer" is saying that "at a rate several thousand times higher than the general population", several thousand? Hey moron, being gay isn't the same as being a pedophile. People that rape and abuse children are pedophiles!
"After all, they just use their own sexual behaviour as self-identity - it's not like they're FIXATED on sex or anything." So "skellmeyer" you being a heterosexual doesn't? Then why the heck do we homos need to see all of the ad's everywhere that are infused with straight sex from people trying to sell YOU something? As if the Swedish Volleyball Bikini Team is hawking Budwiser because they are known for their prowess on the court? All the Liquor adds have ice in glasses that are shaped like boobs and peepee's? Everything the ad agencies do is infused with sex to sell YOU something, Why because YOU respond to it!
And why the heck do you worry so much about my sex life? God knows I don't think about yours even though I'm bombarded by it all day long! It's like thinking about your parents doing it, Eeewwww, get your head out of the gutter and stop projecting you faults onto us!
skellmeyer, you have clearly chosen to be an ideologue rather than a scientist. Taking each of your "arguments" in turn:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) To learn the difference between causation and correlation, go do a basic course in statistics or econometrics. The reason we know alcohol is causal in accidents, rather than just correlated, is because it accidents are more likely AFTER alcohol is drunk than BEFORE. Dead people don't drink.
2) Let's ignore all the research that disagrees with your assertion and just consider one aspect of your unsubstantiated claim: If homosexuality is just a fixation on sex, then surely gay men would rather have sex with women than with children -- that would be legal and easier?
3) If you think that the best thing about homosexuality is being rude to homophobes, then you really need to meet more gay people. NOT because you're gay, but because you should try to understand something before arguing against it.
And skellmeyer...BIG difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. We homos are attracted to the same sex. Not children of the same sex. Homos enjoy consensual sexual relationships.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNah, "chickenhawk" is a term we use to describe an older man who only likes young men. I'm pretty sure straight men have this categorization, too--guys who would rather date/sleep with/marry young women instead of women their own age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I'm really not that fixated on sex, I don't think. To my knowledge, I've only ever been defined solely by my sexual orientation by other people--usually people who don't know me.
It's true though that I drink the blood of hetero babies in my sex dungeon. I don't know if there are studies for that but I'm admitting it to you right here.
Learn the difference between causation and correlation. Have you never heard of the ex post facto fallacy? Just because something temporally follows an event DOES NOT mean the event caused that something to happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didn't say EVERY homosexual is a pedophile. I said homosexuals create a disproportionate number of pedophilia victims. In the same way, not EVERY drunk driver kills someone - in fact, the vast majority of drunk drivers (in excess of 95%) don't kill anyone at all. But if someone gets killed, 30% of the time it's by a drunk driver - they create a disproportionate number of traffic fatalities.
Similarly, homosexuals who abuse children abuse a heck of a lot more victims than heterosexuals who abuse children. If every homosexual was a pedophile, they would be responsible for the majority of pedophilia cases, but in fact, they are responsible for roughly 30%.
So, saying "I'm a homosexual, and so are all my friends, and none of us abuse children." is like saying, "When I was a teenager, I got drunk and drove all the time, and so did all my friends, and none of us killed anybody." I'm sure that's true, but it's not particularly relevant.
Keep arguing that same-sex attraction really ISN'T same-sex attraction if the AGE is different. I'm sure you'll convince somebody. Do you think children are a different sex than adults?... Maybe children are the Fifth Sex people are always talking about? Whatever. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
I'm sure you aren't that fixated on sex. And those guys you see in the bar every night don't go to AA meetings because they can stop anytime they want to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are NOT fixated on drinking. They're normal people. Just ask 'em.
Actually, given that the law requires mandatory syphilis tracking, we DO take away the rights of people with syphilis, regardless of race. It is illegal for them to have sex with someone without contact tracing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the stats on parents, are you saying that homosexuals never get married to people of the opposite sex? That's a fascinating assertion. Go ahead and back that one up, would you?
The really interesting research question emerging here is: Why did Masters try to manipulate his data, instead of his data educating him? What pre-existing beliefs about queer folks (maybe especially men?) did Masters hold that could possibly have skewed his own thinking, research design and so forth? A corollary set: What negative folks beliefs supported the rest of us in his critical scienctific and educated lay audiences, so that we took so long to check and scrutinize Masters published data and claims?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis whole business is looking way too much like junk science; built shaky upon deep, prejudiced needs to find true what folk negatives so loudly tell us is true or must be true. That such a prominent figure as Masters could fall prey to these sources of research bias only reminds us how difficult neutral, best practices in hypothesis testing really are.
PS. hint to the Catholic Medical Association: Global warming is going to get us all, way before any harm stems from living down the street from our ethically committed or even married gay neighbors. Check out the facts, duh.
Hey, it's been 50 years since Kinsey intentionally skewed his own data towards acceptance of non-monogamous sex, homosexuality and pedophilia, and 30 years since the APA allowed themselves to be manipulated on the same-sex attraction front.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would anyone want to be positive towards an activity which is so clearly deleterious in its effects? Maybe Masters and Johnson skewed their data because they hoped people could be gotten out of this pathology?
It was nice of them to try and help, but if pedophilia and alcoholism can't be cured, why would homosexuality be curable?
Sadly, society pays the costs for all these behaviours. That's life.
LJW - Your sister is most likely poly-amorous or bi-sexual. You should separate her attraction from the lifestyle she's currently living. One can be hetero and engage in gay sex but not consider themselves to be gay because they choose to for a life with an opposite sex partner. Take a look at Craig's list and you'll find all different flavors under the rainbow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSexuality is more of a spectrum than a black or white situation. Your sister seems to be able to easily move along that spectrum. In the future, she may decide to jump the fence again depending on who she meets and falls in love with.
It's all a matter of self identification. That's why labels don't work and shouldn't matter anyway.
Thank you, ljw, for your thoughtful and informed comment. I have only anecdotal observations, but my impression has been that there are genuinely homosexual people whose hormones are simply tuned differently than mine and there are others who have developed a deep aversion to the opposite sex as a result of terrible experiences. I think this latter group might benefit from therapy and regret that political correctness from people who see homophobia in every attempt to discuss the issue could be denying such people help that would truly benefit them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLJW - Your sister is most likely poly-amorous or bi-sexual. You should separate her attraction from the lifestyle she's currently living. One can be hetero and engage in gay sex but not consider themselves to be gay because they choose to for a life with an opposite sex partner. Take a look at Craig's list and you'll find all different flavors under the rainbow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSexuality is more of a spectrum than a black or white situation. Your sister seems to be able to easily move along that spectrum. In the future, she may decide to jump the fence again depending on who she meets and falls in love with.
It's all a matter of self identification. That's why labels don't work and shouldn't matter anyway.
From the smithsonian 2/09 Darwin Article: "It is those who know little, and not tghose who knoww much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy personal belief, prob shared by the great majority of educated people, is that conservative religions are glued to the past, never want to admit they are wrong, for fear the house of cards called faith will collapse.
And lots of it will. What is so terrible that the world bodies should outlaw it, is the crimes against segments of humanity. Committed by these organizations in the name of their "faith", but really in the name of their power.
Thank you, ljw, for your thoughtful and informed comment. I have only anecdotal observations, but my impression has been that there are genuinely homosexual people whose hormones are simply tuned differently than mine and there are others who have developed a deep aversion to the opposite sex as a result of terrible experiences. I think this latter group might benefit from therapy and regret that political correctness from people who see homophobia in every attempt to discuss the issue could be denying such people help that would truly benefit them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisskellmeyer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why would anyone want to be positive towards an activity which is so clearly deleterious in its effects?"
Please explain how my monogamous 15 year relationship "clearly has deleterious...effects" on anyone including myself.
"Sadly, society pays the costs for all these behaviours. That's life. " Please tell me how society has to pay for my behaviour. I'm employed, a taxpayer in a high tax bracket, I regularly volunteer to help those less fortunate. In reality, I'm a tax payer receiving less benefits because I'm denied the right to marry my husband in the U.S. I'm legally married in Canada but alas it isn't recognized where I live in the U.S. But that's a whole other topic.
My marriage and same-sex relationship is between two consenting adults. Pedophilia is crime about power between a predator and someone that is too immature and legally unable to give consent. Alcoholism is similar in that there is often an unwitting victim (family members, victims of automobile acccidents, etc). This is not the case with homosexuality. I'm not holding my husband hostage in his gayness. He's quite happy being gay...hence the term! There's no need to cure homosexuality. Much of the anxiety related to being gay comes from the persecution by those unable to deal with others that don't fit into their narrow minded view of how the world should work.
What's needed is for people like you to get a life and stop trying to run other people's lives. My gayness has no impact on you. And if it does, then maybe you start be examining what's wrong in your life.
Given be the number of posts that you've made on this topic, it seems that there may be some obsessive behavior going on!
The people that were so called cured were probably either bisexual or homosexual because of some childhood trauma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember the Kinsey Report(sp?)....if memory serves, very few people were absolute total hetro or homosexual most people fell somewhere in between.
If you believe in freedom,and I think most of us here would say that they do, then it matters not if homosexuality is a choice or naturally occurs.
If you think gays deserve every right that we all enjoy then you truely believe in the freedom that our constatution and declaration guarantees us and if you don't.... then you believe in your own brand of freedom much like the king of England did in 1776 or in todays time the government of Iran,North Korea and Somali to name just a few. If george bush were still president I would include our own US in this group but with President Obama I am encouraged...although the jury is still out. He hasn't repealed the Patriot Act yet.
I'd say she's bisexual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisljw posted at 11:42 AM on 04/22/09
"My sister is a case in point. She has happily heterosexual for many years. After a bad marriage she found and fell in love with a woman and then spent 5 or 6 years as a lesbian. After a breakup and she found and fell in love with a man again.
Is she gay? Is she heterosexual?
I believe firmly that some gay people are born that way and some become that way. I fully support them either way.
I am not sure that I would call my sister "cured". But I would say that she used to be homosexual and now is not.
Could the study have includes some people like my sister?"
I'd say she's bisexual like I am and yes they would have claimed that we can be cured in this study as well. We can't be cured though as we have nothing to be cured of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisljw posted at 11:42 AM on 04/22/09
"My sister is a case in point. She has happily heterosexual for many years. After a bad marriage she found and fell in love with a woman and then spent 5 or 6 years as a lesbian. After a breakup and she found and fell in love with a man again.
Is she gay? Is she heterosexual?
I believe firmly that some gay people are born that way and some become that way. I fully support them either way.
I am not sure that I would call my sister "cured". But I would say that she used to be homosexual and now is not.
Could the study have includes some people like my sister?"
toddmh70, as I pointed out earlier, I'm not arguing from anecdote - although you are - I'm just pointing out the stats.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSame-sex attraction causes a disproportionately large number of pedophilia events and other socially negative events.
As for pedophilia, making arguments about "power", etc., is fascinating and all, but it doesn't explain why same-sex attraction produces more of these "power and control" attitudes. I am more than willing to grant your implicit thesis, however, and agree that homosexuals are very much into power and control fixations.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why same-sex attraction is not same-sex attraction if age is factored in.
You may not personally experience violence in your own same-sex relationship, but same-sex relationships are marked by 2 to 3 times as much violence and substance abuse, and tens to hundreds of times larger disease rates.
Here's a few studies on the violence:
Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
Lettie L. Lockhart et al., “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.
“Violence Between Intimates,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
As for projection, we can both play that game. I could ask why your think only those who suffer same-sex attraction would "obsess" about pointing out the facts of about same-sex attraction. Do oncologists all have to have cancer to "obsess" about cancer? Are gastroenterologists obsessive about Krohn's disease? Are cosmologists obsessed about dark matter?
Exactly, VirginiaRae.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd that other person isn't an alcoholic, she can stop drinking any time she wants.
There's nothing to be cured of, you see.
Skellmeyer, I would note that all your "expert studies" seem quite out-of-date - 1991? 1994? I have a feeling you've grasped at all the academic-sounding straws you could in order to bolster a truly absurd argument. Citing statistics dubious at best, you try to create a causal link between homosexuality and various social ills, rather than (a) checking their validity, and (b) considering the socio-cultural conditions which lead to problems such as paedophilia. By the way, your claim that same-sex relationships involve more violence or power/control fixations is sheer idiocy. I don't know what deep insecurity leads you to obsess (yes, I'm saying it) over the consensual lifestyles others choose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPost-enlightenment discourse has assumed so tacitly the notion of the intrinsic, unchanging Me that even the smartest (or, Skellmeyer, most inane and idiotic) minds forget that in psychological, neurological, and personal terms the self is not a constant, static thing. Sexuality is a spectrum, not a binary. I believe homo/hetero/bisexualities to spring from genetic and neurological components - which can't and don't need to be changed - but one doesn't need to define an individual by sexual inclinations, or marginalize a population with which you don't identify. I don't define a person by partner, but by intellect, creativity, kindness, and the ability to love. What do I care if a chromosome is different or the same from my own?
As long as you yourself are battering about illogical, bigoted, and highly non-scientific blather, I'll add my own ideas which can't be quantified. I can't offer a genetic explanation to the experience of love. I believe in science, but I believe in love, empirically. And I don't understand, Skellmeyer and other bigots, why you feel so threatened by consensual sexual acts, or by partnerships between people whose genitalia happen to look alike. I'll quote the author John Hawkes: "Anything which lies in the palm of love is good."
-Erzsebet Gilbert
Let's think outside of the box, folks. Is there really such thing as a pure homosexual or a pure heterosexual? I think that those who are most vocal against so-called "homosexuality" are speaking from a place of fear about their own same-sex attraction. I am not saying that they are necessarily 'closeted homosexuals.' Rather, their same sex attraction causes them to panic because of the binary way that Western society talks about sexuality. Look back to Alfred Kinsey's studies and see how the vast majority of Americans that were interviewed admitted to some degree of bisexuality. We may call ourselves "gay" and "straight", but I think when it comes down to it, Kinsey is right. The difference is that some of us accept our sexuality for what it is and others struggle with it, which often projects negative images onto blameless people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am aged 58. Before I met my wife I had numerous relationships all heterosexual. In my early youth due to misinformation and ignorance on my part I admit to some anti homosexuality. As I matured I rapidly realised that expressions of affection, caring, love, consideration and all similar emotions are always better than expressions of hate and belittlement. If these expressions mature into mutually consenting physical relationships that are not oppressive or exploitive of either partner (or group member) this is always better than violent and oppressive relationships. This makes me ask the question why are some people so concerned about ways of curing people of some ways of showing love yet are not so interested in curing people of ways of showing hate and indulging in violence toward other people. It especially puzzles me that so many of the leaders in the cure feelings of love group have as their overall mission the message of universal love
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello, what about bisexuals? Bisexuals have been around for ages! People who are romantically attracted to both sexes. Seems from all the "s/he was hetero/gay, became gay/hetero" comments that some are still ignorant, decades after Kinsey showed most people are at somewhat bisexual. Watch the movie Kinsey.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBernium
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to read the whole thread.....I later mentioned the Kinsey report and said that probably very few people are completely hetro or homosexual...and that most people fall somewhere in between.
...and I have seen the movie
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this....and I have seen the movie
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkellmeyer!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCitation war!!
Lundy, S. 'Abuse That dare Not Speak Its Name: Assisting Victims of Lesbian and Gay Domestic Violence in Massachusetts', Symposium on Domestic Violence, (Winter 1993) 28 New England Law Review 275.
and
Island, I. & P. Letellier. 'The Scourge of Domestic Violence', Gay Book # 9, San Fransisco, CA, Rainbow Ventures Inc, Winter 1990, at 14.
Guess what - they show similar levels of prevalence of domestice violence!
Studies you cite on paedophilia conflate all same-sex encounters as homosexual even when the perpetrator identifies as heterosexual.
Getting back to the subject in hand, you'll find that most so-called studies of change therapies are published in vanity journals such as pay-per-page Psychological Reports. So citations be damned. This is about winning a moral argument and frankly people like you are losing. The Culture Wars may not be over but for sure the end is in sight.
i'll stick my neck out and offer my observations and musings garnered through having a well traveled (multicultural) existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalthough highly theoretical (controversial with mainstream academia) i draw on "pop" sociobiology and less controversial"selfish gene" perspectives and elements of (very controversial) aquatic ape theory" (and a bit of nature/nurture)
one of my axioms is that our genes have not changed significantly in the last 100,000 years and we are evolved to live a hunter/gatherer/nomadic lifestyle and although agriculture has altered this, it is nurture that has significantly altered our behavior and this clashes with our
unchanged "nature" portion.
regarding homosexuality:
it obviously evolutionarily successful probably via the additional support given to the genes of siblings (similar to the gene support by infertile "grandmothers")
i am a male heterosexual but one episode in my life gave me much thought. i was at school with a late maturing friend with whom i had no sexual attraction but he had 2 female cousins whom i found very attractive. the "elephant in the room" was that had he grown his hair, they could have been identical triplets.
where does "temporary" homosexuality (as in prisons, boarding schools) fit into the equation. is this just purely power/dominance strategy.
regarding paedophilia:
i feel that nearly all men are dishonest (to themselves and others) in regard to their natural? attraction to post pubertal girls and this (in combination with "first world" society's apparent disdain of such attraction) and sometimes consequent behavior (damaging or not - and i'll add to this later) really "screws" (sic) up the general population's sexual psyche.
regarding "damage" due to (post pubertal) paedophilia:
because of better nutrition, girls mature physically earlier than they were evolved to. however the mental maturity age does not seem to have kept pace and this dichotomy can provoke damage to the "victim".
i have also observed that the society's over-reaction to the discovery of paedophilic acts, usually is more damaging to the girl than the acts themselves.
modern "nurturing" promotes pre and mid pubertal paedophilia by portraying the "ideal female" to be a girl who is pre/mid pubertal. if breast size is disregarded (especially in the usa) then the ideal form is usually portrayed as a pre/mid pubertal girl. note the body shape and lack of body hair (which most modern woman waste much time futilely trying to emulate)
running out of space - opinions welcomed
Omg I am in agreement, with all the subjects we could be yapping about, why do we always pick on the topics that should be left to each individuals own conscience?...we all have our own sexual preferences....male, female, blond, brunette, thin, voluptuous....what difference does it make? What people do with their bed partners, and who their bed partners are, is their own business....there is someone for everyone! I happen to enjoy knowing we are all not alike.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVive la difference!
Omg I am in agreement, with all the subjects we could be yapping about, why do we always pick on the topics that should be left to each individuals own conscience?...we all have our own sexual preferences....male, female, blond, brunette, thin, voluptuous....what difference does it make? What people do with their bed partners, and who their bed partners are, is their own business....there is someone for everyone! I happen to enjoy knowing we are all not alike.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVive la difference!
Omg I am in agreement, with all the subjects we could be yapping about, why do we always pick on the topics that should be left to each individuals own conscience?...we all have our own sexual preferences....male, female, blond, brunette, thin, voluptuous....what difference does it make? What people do with their bed partners, and who their bed partners are, is their own business....there is someone for everyone! I happen to enjoy knowing we are all not alike.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVive la difference!
Omg, I am in agreement, with all the subjects we could be yapping about, why do we always pick on the topics that should be left to each individuals own conscience?...we all have our own sexual preferences....male, female, blond, brunette, thin, voluptuous....what difference does it make? What people do with their bed partners, and who their bed partners are, is their own business....there is someone for everyone! I happen to enjoy knowing we are all not alike.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVive la difference!
1) It is amazing that people reject Masters and Johnson, but accept Kinsey, whose data is known to be skewed through inclusion of prison populations, pedophiles, prostitutes, etc. It is quite likely the man even commissioned pedophiles to abuse children in order to gather his spurious "data."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) No one has explained to me why a same-sex relationship is suddenly redefined to be a NOT same-sex relationship when the age of one is below an arbitrary predefined minimum. You seem to think children are a different sex. They aren't.
This odd understanding of pedophilia is rendered even more comic when we consider that the marriageable age for most of human history has been around 12 to 14. The idea that you have to be 16 or 18 to marry is a post-industrial concept.
So again, why is same-sex pedophilia considered NOT same-sex when one of the two participants is below a certain age?
3) Homosexual activity is a public health issue, since it is associated with greater inter-personal violence, greater STD transmission, higher substance abuse rates, higher suicide rates, higher depression rates and lower general life expectancy, even in cultures which attach virtually no stigma to the lifestyle.
4) It is a non sequitor to say simultaneously "this isn't important" and "everyone always talks about it."
5) Most of the commentators on this thread don't seem interested in empirical evidence, rather, they seem interested in justifying their own life experience. Alcoholism was "normal" (i.e., common) in the old Soviet Union and it was widely accepted, but that didn't make it a good idea. Homosexuality is in the same category.
skellmeyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you knew your ass from a hole in the ground you'd be dangerous. Kinsey did a very well documented scientific study. I think he interviewed 100,000 people and it took around 20 years to gather up all the data.
There has been homosexuality in every culture in thousands of different species...why would we be any different? If it truely were a choice, why would 2nd born sons be more likely to be gay than 1st born sons according to a Yale University study and has been duplicated by other studies?
Actually, Kinsey's research included about 18,000 people, not 100,000. Those 18,000 "histories" were the basis for his two books. He didn't spend 20 years on the research - he first started researching in 1938, and published his first book in 1948.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFormer and current directors of The Kinsey Institute confirmed that some of the information on sexual behaviour in children (Tables 31-34) was gathered from nine pedophiles and that Kinsey chose not to report the pedophiles to the authorities. Some of the information was clearly gathered as an active homosexual pedophile abused children while Kinsey timed the actions with a stopwatch.
His "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" was #3 on the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's "50 Worst Books of the Twentieth Century," due in no small part to the known sample bias: significant portions of the samples come from prison populations (25%) and male prostitutes (5%), and the whole of Kinsey's work suffers from massive self-selection bias.
The American Statistical Association condemned the work the same year it was issued.
Oh, and to say, "There have always been homosexuals," or "It's natural, because successive boys are more likely to be homosexual" is simply a confusion of the natural with the good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour argument could be re-phrased as follows: There has always been rape. Dolphins and mallard ducks engage in what looks like rape. So why do we outlaw rape? It's perfectly natural - people have always done it. Men do it more than women. It's just part of human nature.
Arsenic is natural - in fact, it's an element. According to your logic, there's nothing wrong with eating it since it is natural. Cannibalism is natural. Monkeys chase down smaller monkeys and rip them limb from limb, consuming their smoking flesh raw. Nothing wrong with cannibalism either.
I won't mention that several of the most notorious cannibals, like Jeffrey Dahmer, or Armin Meiwes of Germany, were homosexuals. Indeed, according to your theory, Meiwes didn't even commit a crime, since it was consensual cannibalism - he made a videotape of the consent, the cutting up and eating of the victim, and the victim's death (in that order).
Skullmeyer, it is clear from your arguments that you are not at all interested in sharing opinions, and that you are doing your best to provoke everyone here with the most inflammatory remarks that you can possibly make. In short, you are behaving like a shock evangelist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have asked one question that might possibly be entitled to a response, namely why are same-sex relationships no longer classified as such when they occur between minors and adults? The answer is - for the very same reason they are not classified as opposing-sex relationships. There is NO relationship. There is an event in which one party - ie, the minor - is victimized by the other - ie, an adult - in a sexual manner. I might also point out that it is difficult to classify these encounters as homo/heterosexual in nature because the victims are typically too young to possess secondary-sex characteristics. Sexual preference means nothing when there is no differentiation in morphology of your chosen selection.
Furthermore, to even -attempt- to correlate between homosexuality and pephilia as tendencies displays ignorance and bigotry at biblical proportions. Using alcoholism and drunken car accidents as an analogy does not justify your position in any way. It just demonstrates the depth of your cluelessness on the subject at hand.
I don't think the issue has been tackled appropiately from any level, being it political or scientific. The christian right views homosexuals as people who have made a fundamentally wrong choice based on the a priori assumption that it is a sin (precisely, an "abomination", as is dubbed in Deuteronomy), and try to demonstrate that it is just a matter of (wrongful?) choice. "Liberal" scientists, on the other hand, sometimes seem interested in proving that there are organic causes linked to homosexuality, and do research so as to show the differences in brain morphology, neural networking and embryonal development, to name a few favoured roads in current research. I consider that both endeavors are without blame as long as they rest on the grounds of proper scientific ethics and methodology. Those who interpret those results should remember that we are still unveiling the impact of neuroplasticity in our brain and in our beheaviour, particularly in the fields of gender and sexuality. And most important than the scientific considerations is the simple fact that choice or predetermination, homosexuality will remain as a social factor that must be dealt with equal respect and consideration as any other characteristic that affects citizens in a participative democracy (that means that homosexuals should have the same rights and obligations as any other citizen, and no MORE o LESS (meaning that hate crime legislation or banning the marriage of gay people are equally aberrant).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know why you find facts to be a provocation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut let me get your position straight: having a penis is morphologically equivalent to not having a penis? Having testicles is morphologically equivalent to not having testicles. I must grant you, that is an original position to take.
If "there is no relationship" between a minor and an adult having sex, how are you going to define "minor"? According to current law?
Does this mean that when the age of marriage in the US was only 14, as it was in the 1700's, the two getting married actually had no relationship? So, putting a penis into someone else's body doesn't constitute any kind of relationship?
When the prophet Mohammed married a six year old and had relations with her at the age of nine, he had no relationship with her? That position will rather tick off the Muslims, don't you think?
And why does the adult feel an attraction to a minor of the same sex as opposed to a minor of the opposite sex? From a per capita point of view, same sex pedophilia is MUCH more common than opposite sex pedophilia. Same-sex abusers abuse dozens to hundreds more victims than opposite sex abusers.
1% of the general population consistently experience same-sex attraction. 30% of minor sex-abuse victims have same-sex abusers.
What's that? A statistical quirk?
As for the dearth of "brain plasticity" and the unknown cause of homosexual attraction, that isn't really relevant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe still aren't entirely sure what causes alcoholism, but that doesn't keep us from essentially outlawing all public displays of it due to health reasons. The whole biology of various addictions has never been clear, but nations have been passing laws against addicts for decades.
Are all those laws immoral and aberrant? Should we abolish the whole drunk-driving thing because we don't know entirely what causes it?
Homosexual activity is a public health issue that definitely harms society. To say that it is natural or abnormal, that everybody does it or no one does, that everyone accepts it or everyone thinks it's a sin, that we should or shouldn't be passing laws against it, none of that is relevant.
It is the sexual equivalent of alcoholism in terms of inter-personal violence and disease causation (both physical and mental). Those are facts. Nobody here seems to want to deal with the facts.
This non-issue is driving me sick already. To much time, money and and 'faith' have been wasted on BIGOTRY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrow up, get a grip and get a life, ye 'Christians'. Did Jesus give you a new life to waste on other peoples' non-issues? Did Jesus convert you all into the scribes and the Pharisees? Better give up your rotten 'faith' if these are indeed the case.
BIGOTRY in the name of 'faith' is YOUR problem. Keep it to your own sorry religious belief !
Okay, this isn't going to be a politically correct post, but I'd rather be a personality of substance rather than a hypocrite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf gays were actually "born queer," and if you believe in evolution to some degree, then homosexuals would have already been extinct.
Further, check out your own plumbing! You consider it "normal" to have to wipe excrement off your junk after sex? How sick is that? And, in the case of lesbians, you have those menstrual periods for a reason--to renew the egg that is in waiting for the male sperm. Can you fertilize that egg with your plastic penis?
As the world gets older and older it gets sicker and sicker, and devoid of common sense. Makes me think that maybe the Christians have it right...
Good to read that there are people still active and caring about sexual health and wholeness, and there is still awareness about homosexuality not being the best sexuality to live by. ( Things have been getting a little strange these last couple of decades!! ) one word says it all: Misinformation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy observation is the following: Let's not let sexuality's infinitely old and mischievous nature take us on a wild goose chase in trying to reinvent creation and find a category/treatment for labels that we invented. The answer is right in front of us. Let's pay attention to how we raise and love our children, talk to our teenagers, learn and teach each other through culture. And most importantly, understand what adults are really deep down inside looking for. Was it just plain love, understanding and male camaraderie underneath what apeared to be about homosexuality all this time?
Oh sure! Like it's 'normal' to have to wipe urine off your junk after sex in a vagina? How disgusting is that!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho seriously cares if gays and lesbians are born that way? And no I do not believe in evolution. I believe in creationism.
Any MY do YOU use your sperm to fertilise an egg every time during sex? So why not you keep sex strictly for the times you feel like having a new baby?
Oh and 'normal' or not . . . like it's your business? Clearly it isn't mine.
You are sadly confined in your own pofessional 'darkroom'.
There is an easy answer to this. Any time a religious person opens their mouth and spouts Biblical nonsense about a topic that they obviously know nothing about with respect to a) science b) evidence c) common knowledge, you ignore that person. Ignore them. Completely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience has been around long enough to prove that religious people have no business trying to use Scripture to rule the world, run organizations, manage their lives, manage other people's lives, etc.
Life exists on a spectrum. Short to tall, fair-skinned to dark-skinned, moron to genius, straight to gay. When people have issues with part of that spectrum it speaks far more about that individual than it does to what's in that spectrum.
Huh? !! Do you think you could attempt to be a little clearer and less lude when you write on a public site?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is Creation. I don't believe the Bible was ever meant to be taken literally. Though if correctly understood and interpreted it can lead to truth.
Of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was simply letting him/her taste his/her own flavour.
I can't even believe the validity of "curing" homosexuality is being debated anymore. The comments on this article are as out of date as masters & johnson. I feel like I'm in a time warp here. Turn on your tv, people! Read a newspaper. Pay attention to the people around you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with gibsongirl.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead.
Start with http://www.narth.com/
Qraal is not quite right about what is in Torah. Torah law and narrative both condemn homosexual acts as an abomination in the eyes of God. Nothing is said about having momosexual temptations other than coveting somebody else's wife.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I have seen dogs engage in homosexual horseplay so the idea that homosexuality is 100% unnatural is not true but it is still abberant behavior.
The next part is to so much change the subject but that even if you have a perfectly permissible heterosexual relationship people might still see that as politically incorrect and to state some of the things wrong with radical Christians.
Also, right wing Christians choose to ignore the parts of Torah that allow premarital sex in order to grant relief to politically unpopular couples. How we got the idea that God makes marriages is that these exceptions would not exist unless romance and marriage were ideas that come from God. This was also a matter that peace occursn when people start trading together, pray together, and then ( GASP!) marry each other. Essentially, God helps create peace by means of marriages.
Nevertheless, getting married for a lot of people is a lot like jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with nothing but a parachute to keep oneself from turning into a pancake. Grandmother fainted when she got married.
I have also run across the idea that the widowed cannot remarry and a few other kinds of pure BS. If say an older woman is married to a younger man, some people will support the relationship and some others will see it as queer as a 23 dollar bill. This is even though God ordered Moses to use the word for "never married" so that fornication would not be a sin for the widowed. This was a way of saying that not only do you have to allow the widowed to remarry but you have to like it.
Mike Cole mc5w at earthlink dot net
You cannot please all of the people all of the time.
Leaderofmen...is right,except for the ignore them part. Ignoring them ,in the US, gives us leaders like george bush(fundamentalist are real good at starting unjust and costly wars) and gets creationism taught in our classrooms(while the rest of the civilized world laughs at us).Ignoring them get people killed....lots of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur neoconservatives are neither new nor conservative, but old as babylon and evil as hell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelief in the supernatural reflects a failure of the imagination.
A couple of Edward Abbey quotes.
We must fight these neoconservative fundamentalist every step of the way...look at the mess the world is in and it's largely their fault
and they've used this homophobic BS to get themselves in power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll right. So, drunk driving is equivalent to homosexual intercourse. Then you are absolutely right: it should be banned! It should be criminalized and persecuted. That's why we have those lawmakers sitting in congress/parliament anyway. All those pesky little personal freedoms get in the way of progress. Plus, of course, as the definition of what is "good" has been for ages known (it seems that it lies somewhere quite far from what can be understood by "natural"), we should by all means gear our social endeavor towards it. Awsome epistemologycal insights, skellmeyer!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy, thank you, Alvaro, for recognizing the force of the argument. Very few supporters of homosexual activity are willing to be objective about the science and the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's refreshing to see that you don't allow narrow-minded, antiquated, personal fetishes to interfere with your ability to acknowledge the social reality. It is regrettable but true that most people pursue their own physical pleasure, refusing to recognize the harm that this may wreak on themselves and others.
You really are now able to join a growing chorus of voices who are unwilling to allow individuals to destroy themselves and the people around them through their personal addictions.
Let's hope more people on this list and elsewhere start responding to the reality of the situation, instead of living in their own little cultural illusion.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReorientation Therapy.
"Spitzer's findings challenge the widely-held assumption that a homosexual orientation is "who one is" -- an intrinsic part of a person's identity that can never be changed.
The study has attracted particularly attention because its author, a prominent psychiatrist, is viewed as a historic champion of gay activism. Spitzer played a pivotal role in 1973 in removing homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders."
"Is reorientation therapy chosen only by clients who are driven by guilt--that is, what's popularly known as "homophobia"? To the contrary, Spitzer concludes. In fact, "the ability to make such a choice should be considered fundamental to client autonomy and self-determination."
then:
its a choice not a cure, a cure its an equivocal word in this contex.
.
Skellmeyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDrunk driving and homosexuality are not comparable offenses...one is endangering the lives of others without their consent,rape and pedophilia are in this category, and the other is between consenting adults....Maybe you can figure out which is which.
Life is a sexually transmited terminal illness.If you've had sex with more than one person?(In your case I highly doubt it) Then you are contributing to the possible spread of STD's too.You can pull that shit about drunk driving and hohmsexuality being comparable infractions to your bible thumpers.... but not on this crowd.
Alright, Todd Brown, if you want to say that consent is necessary, and it's ok if it's between consenting adults, then all the same-sex bug chasers - people who deliberately have unsafe sex with HIV positive people in the hopes of getting the disease - that's ok then? None of the rest of us should view that as abnormal? They should be covered by our tax dollars in Medicare, Medicaid and higher insurance costs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd how do you define "adult"? In the 1700's, an adult was anyone 12 to 14 - that was the legal age of marriage in the United States at the time of the Revolution. Why is consent at 12 ok then but not now?
Furthermore, you haven't addressed the fact that same-sex attraction causes a tremendously higher rate of pedophilia, interpersonal violence, depression, STD transmission, etc., than opposite-sex attraction.
Finally, we seem to have a double standard when it comes to something you acknowledge to be a disease state (drunk driving) and something you refuse to acknowledge as a disease state (homosexual activity). We penalize people for daring to be ill while behind the wheel, but we insist that same-sex activity is not a choice and therefore cannot be punished.
If being an alcoholic is not a choice, but we insist that alcoholics abstain, then we can we not also say that being homosexual is not a choice, but we insist that homosexuals abstain? Both cause about the same amount of economic damage to the economy.l
Oh, Todd - one more question on that consenting adults thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArmin Meiwes put an ad out looking for a man who was willing to have homosexual sex, be slaughtered and eaten. March 9, 2001, in Rothenburg, Germany, his dream was answered.
Bernd Jürgen Brandes answered the advertisement. Meiwes cut off Brandes' penis, they both tried to eat it, were unable to because it was "too chewy", so Meiwes fried it up in a pan. They still couldn't eat it because he burned it. Schade. Miewes read a book for three hours while Brandes bled to death in the bathtub, then he kissed Brandes and killed him in a room built for the purpose. He consumed the man's corpse over the next several months.
This was all consensual, the maiming and death was filmed, there's no question about any of that.
So, you're fine with what Meiwes and Brandes did, since it was between consenting adults?
That's your only criterion, remember.
This is fine, because everyone agreed to it.
Meanwhile, drunk driving - where more than 95% of drunk drivers get home safely without harming anyone - drunk driving is not fine because there wasn't consent.
And, of course, if you AREN'T fine with consensual slaughter and cannibalism, then we don't disagree on principle, we just disagree about where to draw the line on consent.
If voluntarily seeking bodily harm is not ok, then bug-chasers are not ok, but then, arguably, neither are sado-masochists.
Indeed, we have now thrown out CONSENT as the guiding criteria entirely. And made hash of your defense.
To ljw:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't make any conclusion for case of your sister, but the description from your observation is similar to bisexuality. My understanding of bisexuality means emotionally or sexually attracted to same and different sex.
Skellmeyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it is true that cultural perspective do help determine when adulthood arrives for a person and what was "normal" in the 1700's are different than today. The examples you use of strange behavior as if that were some how the normal everyday activities of homosexuals is down right spreading hate and is dishonest....and I think your smart enough to know that thats what your doing.
There have always been people discriminated aganist.......and it's always by people who are like you
Todd, I'm asking a simple question that YOU insisted on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU said it all revolved around consent. In fact, you even worded your remarks to (perhaps inadvertently) imply that consensual injury is acceptable: "one is endangering the lives of others <i><b>without their consent</i></b>... and the other is between consenting adults."
So, according to your own remarks, endangering the lives of others WITH their consent would seem to be ok, in your book.
Now, bug-hunting is a very common phenomenon. Heck, it was even featured in a Rolling Stone article back in 2003, entitled "In Search of Death."
So don't go blaming me for being hateful just because I reference Rolling Stone magazine. The slaughter/cannibalism events are just a logical extension of the bug-chasing attitude.
If you think such a thing is NOT acceptable and CANNOT be permitted, then you have just CONTRADICTED your own position. You, yourself, DON'T think consenting adults should be left alone in the privacy of their bedroom.
YOU think there should be rules.
SO DO I.
We both agree that there are some things it is not licit or reasonable for someone to consent to. Some things, people must be prevented from consenting to because it's too darned stupid/crazy/injurious.
We agree on that. Now we just disagree on where the line gets drawn. I am pointing out that homosexual activity is pretty darned stupid/crazy/injurious.
You feel it is a level of stupidity and injury that should be allowed because you don't really give a rat's tail about these people. If they can do what THEY want, then you'll be allowed to do what YOU want, and that's really all you care about.
I don't agree with your assessment because I DO care what happens to these people. They don't deserve the level of pain they are getting themselves into by acting out in a homosexual way.
That's the only difference between us, Todd.
Oh, Todd, here's how that right-wing, Bible-thumping Rolling Stone Magazine article ends:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Carlos offers, not for the first time, to have me come along and watch him and Richard have sex, but I decline. In the taxi to Richard's place, the conversation falls silent. He hasn't been tested in a couple of years, and he's reluctant to get a test now. He might very well be positive already. But as long as he doesn't know for sure, he can always hope that tonight is the night he gets the virus. Every date is potentially The One. Stepping out of the cab into the rain, I ask what he will do if he finds out one day that he has succeeded in being infected -- ending the fun of being a bug chaser. He stops, then says he might move on to being a gift giver: 'If I know that he's negative and I'm fucking him, it sort of gets me off. I'm murdering him in a sense, killing him slowly, and that's sort of, as sick as it sounds, exciting to me.' "
So,why don't you go read the article yourself?
Read up on this attitude, Todd.
Then you go on and explain how Rolling Stone Magazine and me are misrepresenting active homosexuals.
J. Milton Stout, Ph.D. and Th.D., uses the expression "the stronger fetus" in his April 22, 2009 comments. How does he define such a term? Who and how is one "the stronger fetus?" I'm surprised that no one else has asked this question. It leaves me wondering if he means a Gay human being who is working out at the gym inside the mother's womb and who has already bought a membership at Bally's Gym where, once born, s/he will continue to be "the stronger fetus." By the way, any question that we might pose regarding us Gay human beings can be equally asked of non-Gay human beings? When did you straits choose to be the way you are? Can you convert? It's merely a matter of choice. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlvaro was being sarcastic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, not sadly, because I have a studio full of naked women, and I'm heterosexual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou might want to brush up on your grammar and spelling, by the way. Just saying.
Have a blessed week.
So was I, galaxy_man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thischek yor spellin!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo fascinating to see dynamics like a major, 'trusted' icon in the scientific community (William Johnson), running a big lie and a wife who couldn't pull rank or talk sense into her own husband! Wow! What does this all say about the scientific community. Despite all science's attempts to rise about the irrational and ego, it is still touched by such infallible human elements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a gay person myself, I've never felt I've 'chosen' my sexual orientation. Choice, as far as sexual orientation or behavior goes, may also be available to some and not others.
Ultimately, I am glad to hear the 'fuller' truth 'come out of the closet'. Masters and Johnson are still revered and it is important to see their anti-gay work 'disqualified'!
So fascinating to see dynamics like a major, 'trusted' icon in the scientific community (William Johnson), running a big lie and a wife who couldn't pull rank or talk sense into her own husband! Wow! What does this all say about the scientific community. Despite all science's attempts to rise about the irrational and ego, it is still touched by such infallible human elements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a gay person myself, I've never felt I've 'chosen' my sexual orientation. Choice, as far as sexual orientation or behavior goes, may also be available to some and not others.
Ultimately, I am glad to hear the 'fuller' truth 'come out of the closet'. Masters and Johnson are still revered and it is important to see their anti-gay work 'disqualified'!
It's called bisexual--the individual who, sometimes at differing times in their life, may be attracted to one or the other gender. Ultimately, however, the determination is found in how she defines herself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishotblack, it is much more than "humping". It has not only to do with preference in the bedroom, but with which gender you best develop those long-term relationships which, for some, may lead to marriage. For others, marriage may not be a choice or an option.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe science really does get buried in the politics of this issue (this article itself is a case in point--the author clearly has already made up his mind what the conclusion is, and his rhetoric seeps with a particular bias). What seems to be clear is that there are different "degrees" of homosexuality. Most complex human behaviors and traits have bio-psycho-social influences, and to think one either "is" or "isn't" is simplistic. Homosexuality is a matter of degree, and I assume some homosexuals actually CAN change their orientation if they go through "re-orientation therapy (?)" (the evidence does seem to suggest so), but many (most) cannot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question is, if someone wishes to change for whatever reason, should it be deemed "unethical" for a psychological professional to assist them? The American Psychological Association would like to say so, but this again seems to be driven by politics, not science. I know people like to characterize this as a debate between "the religious right" (and thus all kooks) and enlightened scientific thinkers, but that itself is a product of politics, not science. People should be allowed to choose how they think about, and what they do about, their own sexuality. If that includes seeking help to change, then for Pete's sake let them, and don't try to take away the license of any psychologist who assists (the APA really is trying to do this).
1% of the general population consistently experience same-sex attraction. 30% of minor sex-abuse victims have same-sex abusers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's that? A statistical quirk?
This thread is probably over and done with but you are misrepresenting a skewed statistic. I don't know where you got this particular stat but it seems that most of your "research" is quite old, I saw mostly stuff in the '90s and I think even one report in the '60s. But for the sake of argument I will just play off of your statistic you keep quoting.
You are assuming that the 1% of the same-sex population is responsible for the 30% of pediphilia cases. This statistic does NOT reflect that. It reflects that 30% or cases were by a same sex offender. That does not mean that the offender is a part of the 1% of the population in your quoted statistic. It could be from the dad or uncle of the child who is straight and married and, again, not a part of the original 1% statistic, but would fall under the second part of your statistic that classifies the pediphilia case as a same-sex offense.
Also, you keep wanting debate that age as a "5th orientation". I don't know exactly what you are looking to debate here because your arguments kept getting more and more vague as the discussion went on. It is like you are trying to twist every single word that someone says just to become argumentative. The examples of alcoholism are also very strange because alcoholism is an impulse addiction whereas homosexuality is not. Your comparisons are getting very odd as the conversations keep piling up. I don't know why you are so adamant about trying to hold on to your views since they seem to be more about the opposition of the recognition of gay relationships. What is your goal in arguing this subject? It is definitely not to understand gays and bisexuals but to undermine and ridicule their position in today's society
f
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAidan Raccon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 1% number comes from the amicus curie brief filed in Lawrence vs. the State of Texas in 2003. In footnote 42 on page 16 of this legal brief, 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following: The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994).
In 1989, the General Social Survey (GSS) by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago found that 98.5% of surveyed participants had been exclusively heterosexual in the previous year.
If a male attempts to have sex with another male, or a female with another female, that is a homosexual action.
You argue that if "the man is straight" it is not a homosexual action. You are in error.
Homosexuals are frequently married to persons of the opposite sex. Being in such a marriage does not make the homosexual person "straight."
Being of wildly different ages does not make the act "not homosexual."
One person forcing himself/herself on the other person does not make the act "not homosexual."
Homosexuality is as much an impulse addiction as alcoholism is. To be an alcoholic, you have to find your money, find a liquor store, walk into the liquor store, buy your liquor and drink enough to get drunk. It is harder to get drunk at a bar (although not impossible, but harder) because bartenders have a vested interest in making sure you don't get drunk due to dram shot laws.
To be homosexually active, you have to find another homosexual and convince that homosexual to have sex with you, period. In terms of impulse, it's at least as quick as finding, buying and consuming a drink. Indeed, in homosexual bars, the two go together. They are both impulse diseases.
To be heterosexually active, you have to find another heterosexual and convince that heterosexual to have sex with you, period. In terms of impulse, it's at least as quick as finding, buying and consuming a drink. Indeed, in heterosexual bars, as two go together. they both impulse diseases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems all you need to do is change a word and it makes perfect sense. I'm convinced.
Who art thou who are so wise in the ways of science?
Skellmeyer, you are one angry dude. I have never seen more anti-homosexual vitrol posted as science in one message board ever. Now, in Religion, there is always hate and it is downright mean and violent. Your "science" is packaged quite neatly (unless you try and make sense of it). If you can't "cure" them, perhaps the Eugenics movement could make a come back and you can find your peace there.
Have a nice day and try Tequila.
Blechten - You SHOULD be convinced. Heterosexual pickup bars are nearly as socially destructive as homosexual pickup bars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe science is pretty clear - both homosexuality and promiscuous heterosexuality are damaging to the persons involved and to society at large.
Welcome to my side.
All I'm doing is referencing the facts. Now, Nature is red in tooth and claw, so perhaps you find the facts aren't as soft and comfy as you like. But you should not confuse objectivity with anger.
It doesn't matter whether I like promiscuity, heterosexual or homosexual. The fact is, if I engage in it, I am dramatically lowering my prospects for good health and long life.
Similarly, I like a beer (foreign, please, none of this American horse water) or a Vodka Collins as much as the next guy, but if I drink several every night, I am dramatically lowering the likelihood that I'll live to retirement.
I should point out that the entire Democrat party agrees with me.
The Democrat-controlled House just passed HR 1913, which provides federal protection from hate crimes against sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity.
Steve King (R) of Iowa introduced an amendment to exclude pedophilia from federal protection. The amendment was rejected.
Obama has said he will sign the bill into law. If this law is passed, pedophilia will become a federally protected sexual orientation. Homosexual rights groups are pleased.
Them's the facts.
Oh, and skip the tequila. Try Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum. Much better aftertaste.
I am with you all the way - it is not my bussiness whether or not another person is gay, as long as they don't abuse others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAvoid tobacco, alcohol, beer, wine, rich food, red meat (preferrably meat at all), women, etc. etc. and live to 110.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn that case one must ask oneself: Why live beyond 20?
Uhm, she sounds bisexual. Sexual attraction needn't be binary in any case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe that homosexuality is a sin; don't believe that gay marriage hurts straight marriage; don't believe in Falwell, Robertson, or the Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne in 25 therapists will assist someone in converting to heterosexuality. That is 4% of the therapist population, how does that threaten the gay community?
Is homosexuality purely genetic like eye color? Identical twin studies (some reported in this magazine) have shown that in around half the cases where one twin was gay the other was straight . How does one interpret such data? It would seem to be saying that orientation is effected by both environment and heredity. Maybe there's a genetic predisposition, maybe sometimes orientation is purely genetic for some and sometime purely environmental for others. It's clearly not like eye color unless you believe that all of the straight twins were lying about being straight in all of the studies.
If its at least partly environmental, what are the environmental factors. If its sometimes environmental does that make it a choice? Even if it's a choice don't you have the right to live your life the way you want -- anyway?
Is homosexuality immutable? Well bisexuals seem to switch back and forth. Ann Heche and Lindsay Lohan seem to switch back and forth. Some guys are gay for pay. Some are gay in prison and not when out. The fact that some gays may feel that they were born that way and have never had a heterosexual thought enter their head does not mean that everyone is like that.
The myth that homosexuality is purely genetic and immutable, seems pervasive within the liberal community. This myth is unsupported by empirical evidence. Political dogma should not be allowed to effect scientific research, whether that dogma is from the right or the left.
LJW:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you describe is neither straight or gay, its bisexuality. The driving force on your sister's overt behavior is social, not her sexuality
Keep in mind that Dr. Spitzer's work shows that about 50% of homosexuals who attempt reparative therapy successfully change not just their behavior, but their sexual and romantic orientation--and Dr. Spitzer was the professor of psychiatry who led the removal of homosexuality from DSM-III. Perhaps Masters was right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisall talk about gays are right or wrong but why you drive on left side of road in UK & right side in USA. I did not see any cow making love with a cow she needs a bull. God created eve from adam & not a johny( to use so called non modern christian analog- some will start harping on religios side rather than medical/scintific side of it. Question is if someone closer to him wants to cure/control his this tendency where I can find solution on behalf of him. He is too shy to do earch. There may be 1 in 100,000 chance to get cure/ control the wrong( right- homo activists may read ) then why not all world is like that. To cut the point gt to the point & say are there any therapies( whatever name you can give to it) in world which will cure/control this tendency may be success rate is 1 in 100000?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific method is misleading. It is a man made philosophy, and is highly fallible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this___
___fallible [f�ljbYl]
___adj
___1. capable of being mistaken; erring
___2. liable to mislead
___[from Medieval Latin fallibilis, from Latin fallere to deceive]
___fallibility , fallibleness n
___fallibly adv
___
___The scientific method will only allow theories from predetermined facts. But how they interpret the facts is unconscionable. They dont practice the simple operation of knowing what you dont know, and opening their minds to what the facts mean. They are in the practice of closing peoples minds. The separation of church and state should be interpreted as to having no reason to contradict religion without good cause in order for their theories to be leveled, then they wont have to teach theories like mine in order to allow people to have all opportunities to decide for themselves. Give people every opportunity to make the right decision. Else be accused of brainwashing by limiting perspective. Show all the senators this, and then pray for them, for if they choose to go against God even after reading this, it will rest solely in God hands.
___
___Knowing what you dont know would have prevented science from making the public service announcement that butter is bad and margarine is good. But the discovery of one fact redirected their opinion 180�. The exact same with eggs,.. First they are bad, and then they are good. If the things that are right in front of them are hard to see, what about the things which are beyond them???
___Luke 17 (New Living Translation)
___Teachings about Forgiveness and Faith
___ 1 & There will always be temptations to sin, but what sorrow awaits the person who does the tempting! 2 It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around your neck than to cause one of these little ones to fall into sin. 3 So watch yourselves!
___We dont let people make their own decisions. All of the following writings were written in order to contradict with integrity, in order to open peoples minds from the restrictions taught to them in school
___
___
It seems to me, that again the opposition was blocked out from voicing their concerns.
___Does it seem right to teach kids that homosexuality is just a choice? The science would lead to the opposite.
___Here is the first problem. The difference between men and women was created to consolidate life's needs into roles toward each other. In fact, science has said that estrogen or testosterone bias-ness in homosexual relationships is to be accepted and is normal.
___All of the half-truths has won over truth will set you free. The science as I know it says...
___1. Men don't have brain-scans like women until they take estrogen pills and testosterone blockers. This tells me that gender confusion takes all forms.
___2. CBS news ran a story about mothers who have more than one male, and the more males they have, the more likely they are to have a homosexual child. They attribute this to women building a resistance of testosterone, and this gets passed onto the child. Yet, they themselves have shown identical twins where one is homosexual, and the other isn't. I say this is because the most obvious thing that even Freud used. When Freud said that your mother is the main contributing factor to your dating identification abilities, he said you either love your mother, or hate her, and your dating will reflect this.
___I say differently. Of course you use this as a model for relationships. But so do you use it as a model for love in general. But we have many influences, and good role models are hard to find. But with homosexuality. If you have older brothers, you are more likely to say, I am not the football star women getting person my brother is, and he's a dick. I relate more closely to my mother. Now this can be attributed to the brain types like Leonardo Di Vinci, or King David's and Jonathan's relationship that has been called a homosexual relationship by people, or even Einstein. But since they reject having a good male role model, they can be led by a subconscious attraction. It is true that homosexuals have a bigger imagination (right side lead) brain. But not all people with a bigger audio section of the brain are gay. In fact, they are great people, and when your gifts are unguided, they can grow or erode to be anything.
___3. Now they have shown that homosexual males have more neurons in the sexual part of the brain. Yet, this doesn't show evolution, it shows adaptation, and probably only in this life.
___4. With autism, they show that autistic children will fire off the same neurons when watching something, as doing it themselves. Now I am dyslexic, but it isn't debilitating because it isn't my main source of strength. It is just a partial factor in my life. And many actors could have this strength. So why are musicians and actors more prone to being homosexual???
___5. They have shown that homosexuals will react to same sex pheromones without prompting. Yet, this study didn't include bi-sexuality, only because that would hurt their case. Would DNA have to become longer to hard wire people to react to both sex pheromones, because if so, then it is merely a learned trait?
___You see, they won't teach politicians the possibilities, only the conclusions they imagine. Who said scientists don't have an imagination.
___
The big bang theory is outdated. The scientific method is a man made philosophy that is highly fallible.
___fallible [f�ljbYl]
___adj
___1. capable of erring
___2. liable to mislead
___
___You see, the big bang theory says that the spreading of the universe is slowing down. Thus soon it will suck back into itself. Then maybe create a new big bang.
___Does this take into consideration that light on the outside of the universe is just being shot into deep space without the possibility of being sucked back in? No.
___Look at this& every solar system and galaxy is similar in that all of the planets or stars are getting in sync with each other according to equators and/or centrifugal centripetal force. In fact this slowing down that they witness is probably the universe getting in sync with itself. &90% more likely than the big bang theory.
___Secondly, they have shown that black holes will stop feeding on the galaxy they center of. The older galaxies are shown to stop the horizon event which shows its sucking in mass of the galaxy. It has been suggested that the black hole simply doesnt have enough mass to reach the rest of the galaxy. And this is probably evidence of perpetual motion once things get in sync with each other.
___THIS SHOWS that the universe has a definite beginning, but no definite ending.
___Scientific fallacies& Butter is bad for you eat margarine, noo noo no, we changed our mind, Butter is better than margarine. Our scientists could see all of butter and margarine, but changed their mind by the witness of one simple fact. Now how can we trust and teach people big bang and evolution when that is highly fallible also.
___
___The human brain was constructed to react to spiritual energies. Every section of the human brain was created to react to different spiritual feelings. Thus we can better understand that depression is really the lack of hope. But stimulating endorphins can change your view on life. Too bad it would make you better at working in a cubicle without due cause.
___Evidence& We witness ghosts by measuring the side effects of their energy. I propose what everyone felt before science was used to brainwash people (brainwashing by limiting perspective). I say that spiritual energy is independent of matter, but has side effects in matter. You see people have been saying this for years by using their brain. Some brains had focus and perception, while others where impulsive and not deep. It is merely point of views that we choose.
___Look here, when you feel love, you feel it where the person hugs you, not from within like all other hormones. Yet, there are physical side effects in the brain. Also unlike all hormones, no matter what you feel about that person, you feel their love, such as when you are disgusted by someone and repulsed by them loving you; you still feel it but react differently. Love and the soul is forever abstract to the physical world because it is from a parallel dimension, the spiritual world. This spiritual world is independent of matter, but has side effects in matter. And maybe matter is independent of the spiritual world but has side effects in the spiritual world. How else ghosts could be locked to locations.
___The case for God& If everything comes from nothing, then everything equals nothing. This has often been theorized. Look at matter, and anti-matter. Anti-matter has been witnessed as electrons acting unlike electrons and having the exact opposite in mathematical measurement. So if you divide nothing into several unequal proportions, the chances of them falling together so that they cancel out would be almost nil. While the nature of gravity can finally be explained by opposites attract , instead of the theory that says, space is like a sheet of rubber with a bowling ball on it. Things fall toward the bowling ball. (ohh so deep).
___How can you possibly manipulate time, by all rights time should be a constant, unless space and time were a side effect to the creation of matter. Thus God could more than likely exist outside of space and time.
___
___I am not closed minded.
___
From :
___Eric Bunnell
___2430 Pillsbury Avenue South
___Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
___okeyjaysen@yahoo.com
___
___&Doesn't this prove that democrats are trying to change legislation and do health care their way, and not the peoples way? Insurance wouldn't pay for things that aren't medically necessary. Yet, they want to open the grounds for tax paid abortions. It's sick to think they'd pay for that, but not sterilization surgery.
___
___What they don't want the public to know...
___People have sensitivity to the fetus. It might as well be that "circumcised hearts" are sensitive to the unborn child.
___
___They quote that they have proof that the child doesn't become human until after born. They say that brain wave activity jumps several days after birth. But wouldnt the jolt (thank god its not a sudden jolt) of stimulation would make brain wave activity jump?
___
___They say that post partum depression is the same from women that have depression after conceiving a child and after having an abortion. In fact, they say that this is merely because of the chemical imbalance that comes with child bearing. Yet, wouldnt we have adapted past that? Its more likely that these cases of depression come from two things. Nine months of anticipation followed by a dramatic realization. &Either the life change, and/or pressure of raising a child,.. or the killing something that was a part of you. But science has already drawn a conclusion, and perpetuate callousness to the unborn child, and hate people who show pictures of a fetus as causing manipulation. Like science has raised them above their emotions, and all else is mentally disturbed. It is blatant over-intellectualization in order to control emotions. That is true manipulation. So why does government take the stance, kill the child in case, instead of save the child in case?
___
___Sincerely, and with regret,
___Eric Bunnell
___
From http://theopendoormn.org/newsletter.html ...
______The secular world makes claim of a morality but by its very nature, it bars its own access to moralitys source. Before looking at scripture, lets look at some basic legal principles. Perhaps the beginning of ones life should be decided by the same criteria as its end. Death used to be determined by the ceasing of the heart. And before that, actually, it was deduced by the absence of breathing. But now, we look at brainwaves. We can keep the heart pumping now so thats a choice issue and were ethically bound to make every attempt to keep the blood flowing (unless in the case of a Living Will). Its all about what we can control. And what we cannot control (at least not yet) is the brain. SO now when there is no brain activity, the person is considered to be dead.
___
______Now, lets apply this to new life. The fetus has a heartbeat in as soon as 18 days. But again, thats no longer the worlds ever shifting standard for death so well move on. Brain activity; the fetus has brain activity in a mere 42 days! Within the 6th week (often before the mother even knows shes pregnant) the life in the womb is beginning to form a mind .
___
______But theres even one other, rarely sticky, criteria; DNA. If somebody takes a life or a death is simply discovered, but no one knows who it is& DNA is called upon to identify the individual. The DNA is not that of the mother or father -- it is all its own, an individual DNA. And this determination occurs the moment the sperm enters the egg and an electrical spark seals the exterior of the egg. At conception a a specific, unique, individual is brought into the world.
___
______You see& its like Shakespeare and the Merchant of Venice. Shylock wanted his pound of flesh and legally it was his. But in taking that owed pound, the man in possession of it would die. The judgment was wisely rendered that Shylock would get his pound of flesh, if indeed he still wanted it (the cost of the terms was severe), for in obtaining it he must not shed a single drop of blood. Blood, after-all, was no where mentioned in the agreement (and interestingly, the life, is in the blood).
___
______My point is that this isnt an issue about a womans right to choose, concerning her own body because the life within her is not her, not hers. Its someone elses. The pound of flesh that is the right of the woman to demand is the tremendous investment of pregnancy. The carrying of a baby to full term is a serious drain on a woman in every way (physically, emotionally, psychologically) but to claim the right to her own body, she must shed blood, the blood of another. And this other is an individual, under the law, by DNA. And to do that is not her right .
___
______The word human or human being, ect. Is translated man in the KJV of the Bible. The Hebrews word for mankind or human is Adam . Thats the word found in Gen. 1:26, Let is make man in our image&& The NT does the same thing with the word anthropos which is where we get our word anthropology, for the study of mankind, (male and female). The charge of the Bible being sexist is largely due to translation, not the message as originally given.
___
______Mankind is, in my opinion, 3-fold body, soul and spirit (cf I Thess. 5:23 which makes Rev. 16:19 pretty interesting). The temple is 3-fold and so are we. The soul in Gen. 2:7, is nephesh and in its literal context this means physical breathing (which, by the way, an individual does). We would say it applies as a creature, either man or animal, breathes in and out, thereby sustaining life. Soul in the OT often means merely the individual life physically. But clearly all these things have spiritual meaning too Christ is the Word (John 1:14) and his words are spiritual (John 6:63).
___
______Apparently some Christians have the opinion that life doesnt begin until the baby takes its first breath. A new life in the womb is in a sense already breathing, by use of the air the mother provides (albeit through a transfer at the cellular level). How else could the tiny creature have brain activity? The huge cost of pregnancy to a woman is certainly a legitimate complaint worthy of the claim to ones pound of flesh. But can it be claimed without shedding of blood?
___
______Look at the corollary. We are to be born again . But this is not instantly its a process. Our Justification has been provided from the foundation of the world (Heb. 4:3, Titus 1:2, ect.). Justification is done now, as though it were never needed, but the born again part, takes the formation process -- which for the bulk of us is still in process (Gal. 4:19). So, what if God just decided to stop nurturing us in the process of being formed in His spiritual womb? Well& you hadnt actually breathed yet, He might say, but I doubt it. God is the Love that seeks not its own but the others good. In that all aborted babies go straight to heaven His Children are returned to Him nonetheless. But consider what role we find ourselves in, in the process.
___
______The Hebrew word nephesh, having primarily to do with breath, or breathing, also has to do with, the sense of being a mind, a self. Even lower animals that arent self-aware, as humans are, so have survival instincts that will cause them to protect themselves, flee danger, ect. This comes from a sense of mind or being nephesh or soul .
___
______More importantly, to me, is the fact that a fetus, from conception, has its own unique DNA. This illustrates the Spirit moving upon the face of the waters (Gen. 1:2) in the way that initial spark begins new life while the two (sperm and egg) make one (Gen. 2:24). Its that point at which the void begins to take form (cf. Isa. 45:7). Our physical existence is intimately and inseparably connected to our spiritual existence. So the Word of God speaks to both simultaneously.
___
______When God Breaks You Down
___
______This humility creates positive change in a person and then your concern only about sowing positive seeds. We must tackle negative spirits with the power of Gods word and not with worldly ways like fighting with our flesh. Any foul thoughts behaviors that threaten us mentally to harm yourself, we have the Bible to empower us through the Holy Spirit and we are shown our purpose for this life to show Gods glory of Jesus Christ. Amen
___
This crisis is an opportunity. I am most worried about the personal accountability in this new health care reform. And secondly, I am worried about the research and development being solely/ultimately in the governments hands. Lastly I am worried that our country will become weaker because innovation and patents will be second to health care. But I am glad the playing field will be leveled, and we are able to help more people.
___In order for you to survive and help people to the max, you need to consider this& I have been debating the legitimacy of insurance (especially with cars) when I was paying 300$ 4 out of 6 months for insurance, and 300$ a month car payments. I would be less likely to make a claim then others, and would have little to show for it. I work at a clinic, at the front desk, and see how many people come in for colds and flues. I see this type of personal responsibility as a dependency and a entitlement people abuse because they depend on others to make decisions for them. The clinics like it because it is an easy, low stress, low thought paycheck.
___If you were to be a mutual fund manager instead, and consolidate lfe insurance, and all other insurances, and retirement funds together. You could use a percent of the earnings to pay your lower staff. The staff would be able to be lowered because personal accountability will be there as a form of retirement hope. This is insurance because if the worst would happen, then you would have a public account that you can draw from. Right now, 20% of your consumers are making claims,.. what percent of this is drawing more then they put in? You decide what you need to use for this. But with a consolidated effort, you will see that it is manageable.
___Personal responsibility will come from your effort to use home remedies, and Web MD to self diagnose the cold and flu. Airborne might be the most effective, but consumer reports doesnt do this part, youll have to. Then you will have to have the facts about surgeries (pros and cons) so people dont get wrangled by doctors trying to make a buck and cover costs. You can use this form of education to have help keep doctors accountable.
___This will appeal to everyone that was against the fundamentals of the government run health care. 90% of America wanted reform. 74% said they need to go back to the drawing board. 54% said this will hurt the economy. But all of them want more power over the problems. This will empower the people. This will enable the people to control costs because it helps them.
___Retirement will have to be a separate account, that wont get drained easily. But when people overdraw their life insurance/other insurance savings, they will inherit a no interest debt they cannot escape, in order to control costs.
___In this, people who join this Health Care Savings Account, With Insurance Kickbacks, they would have to start with it at the age of 18-26, unless they pay a savings kick start program, where they pay double until they reach a dollar amount that evens out the lack of time of investment.
___Personal responsibility& You should read philosophies about dependency, and the trap it creates. Martin Luther was the man who took the power away from the church in order to help people.
___& obtain a unified way of educating the people in order to ensure fraud is obvious to them. And, taking matters of health into their own hands is a responsibility that empowers them.
___IE& back exercise strengths the muscles that support the spine, and reduce back problems by percent. This is a compounding interest in that a regular routine would compound in the percent (graded on a curve) that it curves the effects of neglect and sedentary lifestyle.
___IE& lowing processed food, and taking supplements like mangosteen (Xango brand has good literature) that curves the effects of ADD.
___These dont cure the problem, so the government is powerless, and it is still up to leaders of the private market to lead people. These are basic lifestyles that I think people would adapt to easily if they had more free time (a separate issue that would come from working less and hiring more people, if the cost of living was managed differently (that is neither here nor now).
___
___