Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible, New Research Says

[bob x]

Juan: really, it's OK. I reacted as I did because I thought you hadn't considered how I would feel at all; it's different if you did, and just mis-guessed, heck even *I* can't guess how I'll react sometimes so how could you be expected to?

Azure: you come across as one of those Christians who has no moral sense at all, relying instead on whatever people from thousands of years ago said, with no clue what their basis was or even if they had any. This is "Christianity" at its worst.

 

[Azure24]

Perhaps try reading this thread in its entirety...

If thats the case I'll pass, this thread is over twenty pages long...

Then you will probably have a fair idea of why bob x would be angry with you, as well as what most of us think of your post (been there, done that).

This suggests you are angry with me because I have brought up an old thread. I'm not exactly, as you put it "new" but i have not been here (in this forum) for quite some time. I start a new thread, it is merged with this one so...somehow it is my fault you have heard it all before.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'm sorry Juan. I hit you too hard on this. I know that you had good intentions.

I just don't like social engineering and micro management on the part of the staff here at CR. Either the COC works or it does not. And I don't like the idea that this forum exists for the pleasure of the "council of elders." That every poster should acquaint himself with the writings of the Fathers before venturing a thread. That's elitist and off putting. Maybe someone should make a list of the really worn out topics and sticky it to the board.

Homosexuality
Abortion
The Trinity
Faith versus works
Christians are hypocrites
Hell, what is it?
Life after death
State of the dead
Jesus is or isn't God
War on Christmas


That's a start, but I bet you can think of more.

Chris

 

[bible_reader]

IMO, sexual orientation is a continuum. I believe people are more or less bisexual by nature, and then we are conditioned one way or the other, to start. Perhaps some of us as well have strong sexual attractions to the same sex, which are seen by some people as deviant. I think it is rather natural and that sexuality manifests in all sorts of different ways.

Can sexual orientation shift? Yes, I think so. Are gays and lesbians simply sad, confused people who need external guidance (from family, therapists, churches, etc...) to get their sexuality straightened out (pun intended)? No, I don't think so.

Live and let live. I wonder why some people are so invested in correcting other people's inclinations and choices. Sexual and gender diversity is certainly one area where this desire to "fix" or control other people's lives is still quite prevalent.

Personally, I don't understand what would attract any LGBT individual to the Judeo-Christian tradition--maybe a fascination strictly with Jesus and his message of unconditional love, that I can see.

Why do people of faith need to shape others' identities, sexual or otherwise? Would Jesus care if a person is gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, a drag queen or drag king? It seems to me that he wouldn't give a damn. Did he not hang out with Mary Magdelene, who some speculate was a prostitute? What does Jesus care about? He cares about people's capacity to Love one another and do good works for the upliftment of humanity (my interpretation).

Churches could practice compassion when interacting with LGBT people, who to this day are, despite the sexual revoltion and despite Stonewall and gay rights, often oppressed and denigrated. But they are just people, and often quite kind. Surely they can be good Christians without having to change who they are. Why force them to abandon an important part of themselves? I think when Christians try to 'convert' LGBTs to the 'straight' life, they are, despite occasional cases of success, mostly pushing a community of people away. Instead of practicing compassion, these 'Christians' are practicing bigotry, hypocrisy, and hatred.

Jesus Weeps,
Pathless

One would think that if we were born bisexual, we would all have a vagina and a penis regardless

 

[bob x]

This suggests you are angry with me because I have brought up an old thread.

No, I'm angry because you express ignorant bigotry.
I know that it was not your decision to merge your posts with the thread where I had to contend with similar crap before. However, if you did read through all this stuff, or a sampling, then you would understand what I think of your kind of "Christianity".

 

[path_of_one]

If thats the case I'll pass, this thread is over twenty pages long...

Sorry if you find reading long threads onerous. But then you will understand that some of the rest of us find responding to the same old topic over and over every month is also boring and tiring. Few people who get on the "let's talk about how wrong those homosexuals are" bandwagon seem to have the patience to actually read anything about human sexuality, cultural conditioning, genetics, hormones, and so forth, and those of us who have bothered to read up on it get tired of typing the same information over and over.

This suggests you are angry with me because I have brought up an old thread. I'm not exactly, as you put it "new" but i have not been here (in this forum) for quite some time. I start a new thread, it is merged with this one so...somehow it is my fault you have heard it all before.

First, I'm not angry. I'm kind of tired of the topic, is all. It's not that *you* brought it up. It's that people continually bring it up, generally with little research into human sexuality and with little intent to accomplish anything but feel better about themselves by harping on the sins (for those who agree it is a sin) of someone else.

My question about these posts is, what is the point? Homosexuals know that there are some Christians who are all upset about homosexuality. Christians all know that this is an ongoing debate in the Christian community, and most people are pretty hunkered down in their own position for various reasons and unlikely to change to whatever your view of the issue is. And obviously, you are not homosexual, so it's not like you're looking for support of some form from the Christian community.

Whether it is your (and others') intent or not, posts like this just come across as bashing homosexuals. This is further impressed on bystanders due to the relative lack of "Overconsumption, is it a sin?" and "Making your retirement money off of child labor, is it a sin?" and "Wearing garments of mixed fibers, is it a sin?" and "Divorce, is it a sin?" and "Letting people live in poverty, is it a sin?" and "Not adopting orphans, is it a sin?" posts.

This is why people that post this stuff come across as ignorant bigots (as bob put it) to others. It's not like it is one small conversation among many in the Christian community. It is one of the BIG ONES. However, given the small percentage of people who are gay and the lack of their impact on the rest of the population's capacity to NOT partake in homosexuality, as well as the relatively few times it is discussed in the Bible compared to other sins, this being a BIG ISSUE makes no sense. One of the few logical conclusions that many make, including myself, is that people focus on homosexuality to make themselves feel better- like they have talked about sin and patted themselves on the back for not sinning by being homosexual when in fact, they are by their biology not homosexual so it isn't like some moral feat to avoid it. Attacking a small minority group to feel better about oneself rather than attacking the real big issues that MOST Christians face... well, you can see (hopefully) how that comes across to everyone else and why some of us are just tired of it.

 

[path_of_one]

One would think that if we were born bisexual, we would all have a vagina and a penis regardless

Sexuality is not the same thing as gender (social construction of maleness/femaleness/otherness) and neither are dictated solely by your primary sex characteristics (vagina vs. penis).

Sexual orientation is who you are attracted to sexually. Heterosexual (opposite sex), homosexual (same sex), bisexual (both sexes equally, more or less), asexual (no one).

Gender is whether you see yourself more as a man or a woman, or something else entirely (there are quite a few societies that have third or fourth categories).

Your sex is whether you are XX or XY (or other, because some are born XO, XXY, XYY, etc.) and whether you have vagina, penis, or both. Some people ARE born with both, and it doesn't mean they will be bisexual.

It appears that the genetics that control your biological sex and secondary characteristics (breasts, hair pattern, voice, hormone levels, etc.) are only loosely tied to sexual orientation. And of course we have culture that butts in.

If you review some of my earlier posts, I discuss hormones and such more, but there are many excellent books and articles on the subject.

 

[path_of_one]

I'm sorry Juan. I hit you too hard on this. I know that you had good intentions.

I just don't like social engineering and micro management on the part of the staff here at CR. Either the COC works or it does not. And I don't like the idea that this forum exists for the pleasure of the "council of elders." That every poster should acquaint himself with the writings of the Fathers before venturing a thread. That's elitist and off putting. Maybe someone should make a list of the really worn out topics and sticky it to the board.

Homosexuality
Abortion
The Trinity
Faith versus works
Christians are hypocrites
Hell, what is it?
Life after death
State of the dead
Jesus is or isn't God
War on Christmas


That's a start, but I bet you can think of more.

Chris

Hi, Chris-

I agree with what you say (though I had a good laugh about the list and found myself nodding). I think it is more that this particular issue rarely has some great benefit to anyone reading. It hurts those in our community who are homosexual or bisexual and anything scientific or otherwise we bring in is typically ignored by those in the "they're all sinning, let's take notice" camp. It also is a primary reason why many non-Christians are turned off by Christianity (not because they are gay, but because it then appears that Christians are obsessed with other people's sex lives rather than looking at the planks in their own eyes).

Yeah, the other topics sometimes get old, but they don't hurt anyone.

That's just my 2 cents. I'm not saying to make any rule or whatnot; I'm against most rule-making. Just saying why this topic is more of an issue than the others.

 

[Quahom1]

I'm sorry Juan. I hit you too hard on this. I know that you had good intentions.

I just don't like social engineering and micro management on the part of the staff here at CR. Either the COC works or it does not. And I don't like the idea that this forum exists for the pleasure of the "council of elders." That every poster should acquaint himself with the writings of the Fathers before venturing a thread. That's elitist and off putting. Maybe someone should make a list of the really worn out topics and sticky it to the board.

Homosexuality
Abortion
The Trinity
Faith versus works
Christians are hypocrites
Hell, what is it?
Life after death
State of the dead
Jesus is or isn't God
War on Christmas


That's a start, but I bet you can think of more.

Chris

Ah, the giants...

Maybe they are worn out to you, but they seem to matter a great deal to the majority, which is why they keep coming up Chris. Apparently the majority isn't satisfied with the "answers" received on the subject, which means they are brought up again, and again.

It actually is a normal procedure of man to do such things, and started way back, around cooking fires, and temple mounts.

Fortunately, we can tune out as well as tune in today, on such "old" issues, by a flick of a finger, or a push of a button.

Discussions, however, have nothing to do with the staff. According to you, we should get rid of said topics, as opposed to discussing them? I think the former, would truly be the travisty, since that would entail curtailing one's right to talk about such issues...

but isn't that what you're worried about?

v/r

the jerk

 

[bob x]

According to you, we should get rid of said topics, as opposed to discussing them?

ChinaCat never suggested that anybody "get rid of" new threads on the golden-oldie (or moldy-oldie?) topics. She was just asking why this particular one was treated in a unique fashion (dredging up the old thread and merging the new one into it) when that hasn't been done with any of the other often-recurring topics. Juan and Path have explained their motives; not being a mind-reader, I can't say whether China is satisfied as to why those motives apply here but wouldn't apply in other cases; for myself, I am satisfied that Juan wasn't aiming to be hurtful when he revived the thread that made me swear to leave this board for good (in hindsight, that was just rash petulance on my part; if you will recall, Q, I also swore never to speak to you again, but I think enough time has passed).

 

[path_of_one]

for myself, I am satisfied that Juan wasn't aiming to be hurtful when he revived the thread that made me swear to leave this board for good

And I have such a shockingly bad memory that I completely forgot all about that, so I said "let's merge!" To be honest, all these moldy-oldie topics kind of get congealed into one big blob in my mind.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi, Chris-

I agree with what you say (though I had a good laugh about the list and found myself nodding). I think it is more that this particular issue rarely has some great benefit to anyone reading. It hurts those in our community who are homosexual or bisexual and anything scientific or otherwise we bring in is typically ignored by those in the "they're all sinning, let's take notice" camp. It also is a primary reason why many non-Christians are turned off by Christianity (not because they are gay, but because it then appears that Christians are obsessed with other people's sex lives rather than looking at the planks in their own eyes).

Yeah, the other topics sometimes get old, but they don't hurt anyone.

That's just my 2 cents. I'm not saying to make any rule or whatnot; I'm against most rule-making. Just saying why this topic is more of an issue than the others.

I agree. Some things are hopelessly tiresome. I don't know any Christians who are looking to debate about homosexuality. Everyone gossips and everyone has prejudices, but outside of the really nutty fringe, ala Rev. Phelps and ilk, most people just don't want to talk about it at any depth.

What I was trying to explain earlier in this thread is that I think it's entirely understandable that a person of Christian orientation might feel compelled to state the biblical point of view in a debate setting simply because of their self felt obligation to stand up for their faith. I can empathize with that, particularly when the conversation takes place on the Christianity Board. Conversely, it shouldn't be difficult for the Christian standing up for her beliefs to empathize with we others who also feel compelled to stand up against what we see as bigotry and injustice against fellow humans.

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

ChinaCat never suggested that anybody "get rid of" new threads on the golden-oldie (or moldy-oldie?) topics. She was just asking why this particular one was treated in a unique fashion (dredging up the old thread and merging the new one into it) when that hasn't been done with any of the other often-recurring topics. Juan and Path have explained their motives; not being a mind-reader, I can't say whether China is satisfied as to why those motives apply here but wouldn't apply in other cases; for myself, I am satisfied that Juan wasn't aiming to be hurtful when he revived the thread that made me swear to leave this board for good (in hindsight, that was just rash petulance on my part; if you will recall, Q, I also swore never to speak to you again, but I think enough time has passed).

She, is a he. As for the rest, I'm inclined to agree. None of us are aiming to hurt. But we do have willful personalities (just like you). And that can cause pain when head butting begins. As far a dredging and merging, I just did the same thing with the JW and Who are we threads. Saves band width...

Leaving the board for good, I'm glad you didn't. We'd both lose out. So would a lot of other folk...

Take care,

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

I agree. Some things are hopelessly tiresome. I don't know any Christians who are looking to debate about homosexuality. Everyone gossips and everyone has prejudices, but outside of the really nutty fringe, ala Rev. Phelps and ilk, most people just don't want to talk about it at any depth.

What I was trying to explain earlier in this thread is that I think it's entirely understandable that a person of Christian orientation might feel compelled to state the biblical point of view in a debate setting simply because of their self felt obligation to stand up for their faith. I can empathize with that, particularly when the conversation takes place on the Christianity Board. Conversely, it shouldn't be difficult for the Christian standing up for her beliefs to empathize with we others who also feel compelled to stand up against what we see as bigotry and injustice against fellow humans.

Chris

In other words, one self righteous Christian, and turn away 100 potential conversions. I believe C.S. Lewis' wife said words to the same effect...(wise lady).

v/r

Q

 

[bob x]

She, is a he.

My apologies, Cat.

Leaving the board for good, I'm glad you didn't. We'd both lose out. So would a lot of other folk...

You were one of the prime reasons I wanted to leave.
If you will recall, at the time you were telling me that it was "intolerable" for me to say that teachers should not be allowed to bully their gay students. I'm a teacher myself, and have strong feelings against Islam, and have a lot of Muslim students-- so, I just don't talk about that in math class, since it is no part of my job and would be very unprofessional.
In general, you were opposing the whole concept that someone who serves the public ought not to pick and choose which of the public to serve, based on personal likes and dislikes. I should not have to worry that the police will refuse to protect me against the violent. I rarely go out on a boat, but it would not have occurred to me before I met you to worry whether Coast Guard officers would "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
And you went way over the line when you tried to guilt-trip me by saying you used to be all in favor of protecting everyone, until you met me. I don't know if you were being dishonest with yourself, as well as with me, but you were spewing your specious arguments about why we should be denied the protections that you and everyone else take for granted before I had ever spoken a word to you.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hey Bob,

Part of what I want to do is force people to accept the implications of their positions. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. People who accept the Bible have to decide where to draw the line on literality. It's a slippery slope. The commandments overlay each other. To obey them all destroys zealotry, that's my analysis.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Hey Bob,

Part of what I want to do is force people to accept the implications of their positions. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. People who accept the Bible have to decide where to draw the line on literality. It's a slippery slope. The commandments overlay each other. To obey them all destroys zealotry, that's my analysis.

I'm not Bob, nor do I play him on TV, but...

I appreciate what you are trying to say here, and it goes way beyond sexual sin per the Bible. I think you are getting at the root nature of sin. Yes, the commandments overlay and I will add reinforce one another. But as with anything that gets carried away to the exclusion of other considerations, also known as extremism, what I find in the course of my travels is that any given person will tend to focus on certain issues to the exclusion of others. Lip-service might or might not be paid, but there seem to be a handful of issues that form the focus of the average joe or jill.

So you get a group with extreme attitudes regarding abortion that pretty well ignore the caustic results of adultery and divorce. You end up with a group that focuses on fidelity and who sugar coat the impact of abortion. You get others who focus on linsey-woolsey but ignore the teachings regarding usury. Etc, etc, etc...

I disagree about when one obeys all of the commandments it destroys zealotry...I will go so far as to say being zealous is not a bad thing in and of itself. Jesus taught a middle ground, moderation, of avoiding extremism of *all* kinds. Zealotry is kind of like amperage, it is latent and looking for a way to vent. Its not the volts that can kill a person, its the amps. Misdirected zealotry is dangerous, but zealotry properly directed is a very powerful force for good.

 

[Quahom1]

My apologies, Cat.

You were one of the prime reasons I wanted to leave.
If you will recall, at the time you were telling me that it was "intolerable" for me to say that teachers should not be allowed to bully their gay students. I'm a teacher myself, and have strong feelings against Islam, and have a lot of Muslim students-- so, I just don't talk about that in math class, since it is no part of my job and would be very unprofessional.
In general, you were opposing the whole concept that someone who serves the public ought not to pick and choose which of the public to serve, based on personal likes and dislikes. I should not have to worry that the police will refuse to protect me against the violent. I rarely go out on a boat, but it would not have occurred to me before I met you to worry whether Coast Guard officers would "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
And you went way over the line when you tried to guilt-trip me by saying you used to be all in favor of protecting everyone, until you met me. I don't know if you were being dishonest with yourself, as well as with me, but you were spewing your specious arguments about why we should be denied the protections that you and everyone else take for granted before I had ever spoken a word to you.

You have me mistaken of someone else Bob. I never said a teacher should bully any student on anything, let alone a personal preference. Where I come from, "don't ask, don't tell" is the motto, and it is strictly adhered to, especially by me. I too am a teacher. Probably started teaching students shortly after you did if not at the same time.

And I do not have a bias against Islam, only against idiots that would destroy everything of everyone else's, including their own, in the name of Islam. And I grew up with Muslims my whole life.

In the Coast Guard we pick and choose no one Bob. We go out when mayday crosses our radio frequencies. We have go out, but we don't have to come back...I fail to see the pick and choose in that philosphy of service. As far as whether you run out of fuel, and we call a salvage and tow company on your behalf (and your dime), well, you can thank your fellow citizens who took advantage for decades on that. Used to be we'd come out and bring five gallons of fuel to the idiot that was too drunk to drive a boat let alone see to having enough gas to go out and get home.

I never said any of the such. However, you are an angry sort, and I do pick up on such anger, and can return it back home. As I recall, I tried offering you avenues for insurance that you were lacking...

No, I think you have mistaken me for someone else.

Interesting none the less, how you "let byegones be byegones"...by picking right back up with the critical nature. Kind of like husband and wife arguing then going to bed, thinking it was over...only to have one wake up the next morning with "Oh, and another thing..." coming from their mouth for a "Good Morning"...

v/r

Q

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'm not Bob, nor do I play him on TV, but...

I appreciate what you are trying to say here, and it goes way beyond sexual sin per the Bible. I think you are getting at the root nature of sin. Yes, the commandments overlay and I will add reinforce one another. But as with anything that gets carried away to the exclusion of other considerations, also known as extremism, what I find in the course of my travels is that any given person will tend to focus on certain issues to the exclusion of others. Lip-service might or might not be paid, but there seem to be a handful of issues that form the focus of the average joe or jill.

So you get a group with extreme attitudes regarding abortion that pretty well ignore the caustic results of adultery and divorce. You end up with a group that focuses on fidelity and who sugar coat the impact of abortion. You get others who focus on linsey-woolsey but ignore the teachings regarding usury. Etc, etc, etc...

That's a very astute observation, Juan! Men, especially as they get older, seem to choose a particular obsession to pursue. My grandfather became obsessed with works and outer holiness. He became such a pain in the butt about it that the members of his own church asked him to leave. I have an uncle who's obsessed with masonic conspiracy theory stuff. My cousin is obsessed with abortion. Rev. Phelps is obsessed with homosexuality. Other people I know are obsessed with some area of eschatology and related prophecy. It seems to be mostly the men who really get really obsessive. I remember my aunts gossiping about the other church members after church, but I never remember them, or any of the other women get all worked up about it like the men.

I disagree about when one obeys all of the commandments it destroys zealotry...I will go so far as to say being zealous is not a bad thing in and of itself. Jesus taught a middle ground, moderation, of avoiding extremism of *all* kinds. Zealotry is kind of like amperage, it is latent and looking for a way to vent. Its not the volts that can kill a person, its the amps. Misdirected zealotry is dangerous, but zealotry properly directed is a very powerful force for good.

Having zeal for things is good. Being zealous is good. Zealotry in that sense isn't negative. Even good zealots are a pain in the butt, though!

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

That's a very astute observation, Juan! Men, especially as they get older, seem to choose a particular obsession to pursue. My grandfather became obsessed with works and outer holiness. He became such a pain in the butt about it that the members of his own church asked him to leave. I have an uncle who's obsessed with masonic conspiracy theory stuff. My cousin is obsessed with abortion. Rev. Phelps is obsessed with homosexuality. Other people I know are obsessed with some area of eschatology and related prophecy. It seems to be mostly the men who really get really obsessive. I remember my aunts gossiping about the other church members after church, but I never remember them, or any of the other women get all worked up about it like the men.

I agree men typically display obsessive behavior outwardly in public, and I could go into what I feel are a list of psychological reasons why; ego, chest thumping, saber-rattling, that type of thing. Women are more discrete (sp?), but I would hardly say they are not (or cannot be) every bit as obsessive; and I could give a list of psychological reasons why there too...

Bottom line is that nobody is happy unless momma is happy. It doesn't take much to connect the dots.

Patriarchy isn't all its cracked up to be.

Even good zealots are a pain in the butt, though!

It's nice to be noticed! I, ummm, ermm, uhhh, agree.