Hello and greetings, peoples.
I've seen some rather interesting rhetoric on this thread regarding the identity of homosexuals, and seeing the conflicts and disagreements, have decided to dive into the swimming pool with the rest of you!!!
I'm new and I've read this thread with great interest. I'm gay. When I first came out a few years ago I thought sexuality was etched in stone. But since I've come into contact with more people over the last few years I tend towards the opinion that there can be some flexibilty on that score
but that most people are comfortable on one side of the fence or the other.
On the actual statisitcs of the report-that 15% of the gay people who went to see these evangelicals were "turned"-I just don't know. I'd like to see a similar study where straight people learned to convince themselves they were gay and see if we get a similar percentage rate. Then we can have a comparison. But do you know, I just don't see that study coming about
At some stage in my life I wondered what it would be like if I was attracted to the same sex (as I was not already). Is it possible to change your sexual orientation? I think even if it were possible, the dynamics would be different for different people. Some will manage to make the transformation more successfully than others. Some (perhaps most) will fail. I didn't find it too hard to imagine being attracted to the opposite sex. I just needed to focus my mind on seeing aspects of a masculine personality attractive (ie. try to think like a woman). Men are attracted to women because they have an emotional need for something feminine, and likewise for women needing something masculine. The idea I think, then, is to just change your emotional needs. If you need something masculine, you will more naturally find yourself attracted to a man. If you need something feminine, you will find women attractive. The matter may be somewhat complicated by people who display qualities normally expressed by the opposite sex.
Although fantasy doesn't confirm one's ability to transform one's sexual orientation, I think it's enough just to be able to imagine what it might be like.
It may not be as simple as knowing what women want lol.
I have, however, imagined what it might be like to be one of those people who faint when they see needles and syringes. All I had to do was imagine how awful it would be to have those pointy things inserted into your body and what
potential damage it would do to your body if it punctured an artery, or if you walk into a room, slip, fall over and . . . oh no . . . your eye gets poked out. Or what if, you go to sleep at night . . . and find that there's a needle embedded in your blanket or mattress after some sewing you did . . . meanwhile playing soppy games with your girlfriend, wife, or whatever significant other . . . and accidentally land on one. The idea grew more and more disturbing, to the point where I thought that if I continued imagining what needles and syringes could do to my body, I might actually faint next time when I see one.
The psychology of thinking about needles and syringes and what they can do to your body is dangerous . . . and speaking of psychology, what if psychology did have a part to play in sexuality? What do you look for in a member of the opposite sex? Does she have to be blonde? Brunette? Race? European, Caucasian, Scandinavian, Asian?
This, of course raises questions, particularly regarding the new research. If the new research suggests that people can change their sexual orientation, what does that mean? Some have interpreted it as anti-gay. I don't exactly see it that way. This of course is about what is "natural" or "unnatural." I think we have to be careful with what we mean by "natural" or "unnatural" as this can mean a whole lot of different things, depending on the identity of the object or concept to which you are attaching the word "natural." The reason why homosexuality is seen as "unnatural" is because it appears most people are heterosexual. Homosexuals, therefore, are seen as going against the norm. Furthermore, homosexuals can't reproduce without technology -- another reason why it's seen as unnatural. However, if homosexual attitudes come from the mind, this has nothing to do with the need for technology to have kids.
I saw a documentary recently about transsexuals: people born in bodies of the opposite sex and their sexual identity. Imagine if you had the mind of a man and were born in a woman's body or vice versa. Is it natural? Well, why not? It is not your body, but your mind that determines your behaviour. You are attracted to a particular sex because of your mind, not your body. By "body" I am not referring to the physiology or biochemistry of a person that may affect their behaviour. I am excluding such aspects from what I mean by "body." A person does not say "I have a penis, therefore I must be attracted to something feminine" or "I have a vagina, therefore I must be attracted to something masculine."
Trans-sexuality is attraction of a personality distinctly of one sex to the other. The individual has simply been born in a body of the opposite sex. Homosexuality, however, is an attraction of a personality distinctly of one sex to the exact same sex. Trans-sexuals may be seen as "functioning correctly" (ie. naturally) in terms of having a personality attracted to the opposite sex, but what do we say about homosexuals? Is it natural?
I said a while back that we have to be careful about what we describe as "unnatural." Just what are we labelling as "unnatural?" Is it the mind? The personality? The mind is something that observes an individual's surroundings, has a memory and makes decisions based on what it sees now, has seen in the past and what it remembers of the past. A personality is more than that. A personality is something that has emotions and feelings. It is
a mind with attitude. Quite obviously, we are talking about a personality. A mind doesn't have to be natural. A computer program that plays chess has a mind but no personality. It's a mind that doesn't have an attitude. It's a mind that is calculative but unfeeling.
So what constitutes a
natural personality? Well here's a word or two: innocence and spontaneity. A person is innocent if either they are free from guilt, free from the knowledge or awareness of evil, or if they don't commit to an attitude of judging right and wrong all the time. You are also innocent if you are down-to-earth, open-minded and take a fresh look at the world every day. It is said that kids are more open-minded than adults (and therefore more innocent) because their beliefs are more deep-rooted. There is a difference between being innocent and being brainwashed and indoctrinated. Little kids do get indoctrinated to some extent. Innocence just means that you have your eyes open. The door is open for new ideas to come in. You are brainwashed and indoctrinated if you close your mind later to new ideas.
Spontaneity? Your beliefs aren't fixed, and you don't listen to the politicians and religious leaders. You don't subscribe to ideologies or creeds. You either do things
your way, or if you are religious and believe in God you see yourself as unique in God's world. No-one has the right to judge you except either yourself or God.
Another aspect of a natural personality has to do with the natural course of your life. We all have to make decisions and choices. Many choices are either
forced, or are the
only option considering that we all have particular goals in life and dreams about what we want to become. With decisions and choices, nobody gets it right the first time. So what do we say when people make the wrong decision? Have we sinned? Have we done a boo boo? I don't see it that way. My philosophy is that mistakes, sins, boo boo's were always meant to happen. You were put in that situation.
While all that is happening, our attitudes, beliefs and emotional needs change. While I believe we do have some ability to change the way we think, the rest of our lives (and therefore the rest of our personality) is influenced by forces outside our control. I see all this as part of a natural process as we are all victims of nature, victims of the circumstances.
What I see as unnatural is subscription and conformity to creeds, ideology and politics. Ideological and political systems take a structured view of the world and seek to classify and apply labels, bumper stickers, protocols and semantics to people. This is impersonal. Anything impersonal is unnatural. It's impersonal and unnatural because it's got nothing to do with the person. It has to do with changing external factors.
Considering all this, I would have the following views.
So what's this got to do with homosexuals?
My response: What I have done here is present a different concept of what constitutes "a natural personality" as opposed to the one many of our religious leaders promote. If we take this view, it will now appear that it is not homosexuals, but religious leaders themselves that have an unnatural personality. That's because religious leaders that promote such views have lives driven by rules. They are machines and slaves of ideology. Their lives are confined to the structural boundaries of their ideology.
But the question remains, are homosexual attitudes natural?
My response: Consider being born a trans-sexual. You are a heterosexual born in the body of the opposite sex. Nature put your mind in the wrong body. Nature got your mind and body mixed up.
Now consider being born a homosexual. You are quite capable of distinguishing between the sexes, except that you are attracted to the sex opposite to that normally sought by a masculine (or feminine) personality. Nature gave you the wrong mindset. If it's naturally possible for nature to get your attitudes mixed up then it is also possible to be naturally homosexual.
It really doesn't matter if God originally designed us to be heterosexual. As the story goes, Adam ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We are supposed to be a tainted, malfunctioning creation. It is not immoral to malfunction. It is immoral to hate and think evil thoughts. We are allowed to be faulty. There are some attitudes we can't control, and others that we can control. Let's do something about the latter. We can't blame Nature for what it does with our minds and bodies.
Can you change your attitude?
My response: Everyone's got a life story. Our life story is our history and it's a part of who we are as a person. Nobody can judge us based on what we've done in life because a lot of what we do is influenced by what happens around us which is beyond our control. Most of the time we're victims of nature, victims of the circumstances. In the greater scheme of things, we are victims of what Adam did.
If you had to become a heterosexual, that would take time. But consider how your life has played out. Did you manipulate yourself to become homosexual? Did you become homosexual because you were following rules? Were you motivated by ideology, creeds or politics? If not, you are homosexual by nature. Your sexual orientation wasn't ideologically inspired.
If you "become" heterosexual because you were taught by some ideology that you had to be heterosexual, I would actually regard that as unnatural as that is a choice incompatible with your own personal feelings and would not have been the natural course of your life if you had not encountered that ideology. A natural transformation would be one inspired by some recent emotional experience that made you feel like you wanted to be heterosexual. You could then take a roller coaster ride on the feelings you develop as you progress toward heterosexuality.
You can't be heterosexual if you don't have the right feelings or emotional needs. If your emotional needs are that of a homosexual then you are, naturally a homosexual. We can't criticise or condemn nature. Nature is nature. Plants need water and sunshine in order to grow.
Is the new research anti-gay?
My response: If homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality is also a choice. If a choice to change one's sexuality is unnatural, then being heterosexual is also unnatural and choice-driven. The logic that being heterosexual is natural would then be contradictory. Those who are anti-gay want you to think that it's natural to be heterosexual, but if they tell you that you have a choice, then that logic contradicts itself.
