http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/exodus-international-shuts-down_n_3470911.html
QuoteExodus International, a large Christian ministry that claimed to offer a "cure" for homosexuality, plans to shut down.
In a press release posted on the ministry's website Wednesday night, the board of directors announced the decision to close after nearly four decades.
"We're not negating the ways God used Exodus to positively affect thousands of people, but a new generation of Christians is looking for change -- and they want to be heard," Exodus board member Tony Moore said.
The closure comes less than a day after Exodus released a statement apologizing to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community for years of undue judgment, by the organization and from the Christian Church as a whole.
"Exodus is an institution in the conservative Christian world, but we've ceased to be a living, breathing organism. For quite some time we've been imprisoned in a worldview that's neither honoring toward our fellow human beings, nor biblical," said Alan Chambers, president of Exodus.
The apology coincided with the ministry's annual conference in Irvine, Calif., and the planned broadcast of a "Gods & Gays" report on "Our America With Lisa Ling," which is slated to air on OWN tonight.
Last year, Chambers decided to stop endorsing the widely denounced practice of gay "reparative therapy." The full text of his personal apology is available here.
Chambers isn't the only Exodus member who is sorry. In April, John Paulk, former chairman of Exodus and the co-author of "Love Won Out: How God's Love Helped Two People Leave Homosexuality and Find Each Other," renounced his past involvement in the "ex-gay movement," and expressed remorse for his actions.
"For the better part of 10 years, I was an advocate and spokesman for what's known as the 'ex-gay movement,' where we declared that sexual orientation could be changed through a close-knit relationship with God, intensive therapy and strong determination," Paulk said. "At the time, I truly believed that it would happen. And while many things in my life did change as a Christian, my sexual orientation did not."
He added: "Today, I do not consider myself 'ex-gay,' and I no longer support or promote the movement. Please allow me to be clear: I do not believe that reparative therapy changes sexual orientation; in fact, it does great harm to many people."
Exodus plans to launch a separate ministry that aims to be more welcoming.
Quote"For the better part of 10 years, I was an advocate and spokesman for what's known as the 'ex-gay movement,' where we declared that sexual orientation could be changed through a close-knit relationship with God, intensive therapy and strong determination," Paulk said. "At the time, I truly believed that it would happen. And while many things in my life did change as a Christian, my sexual orientation did not."
oops! :D
But he deserves some respect for admitting he was seriously wrong. That's a rare commodity nowadays.
Wahoo! A Culture war victory!
Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2013, 08:34:39 AM
But he deserves some respect for admitting he was seriously wrong. That's a rare commodity nowadays.
Yep.
So cure doesn't work. We'll have to stick to containment. Let's hope that one works.
I always figured that a religious cure was ridiculous. It would make far more sense to identify the genetic disorder that causes homosexuality, repair it, and then allow the poisonous gay culture to wither away.
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2013, 08:38:58 AM
I always figured that a religious cure was ridiculous. It would make far more sense to identify the genetic disorder that causes homosexuality, repair it, and then allow the poisonous gay culture to wither away.
Hormonal disorder is more likely. I suspect that one day the root cause will be discovered and the choice of child being gay or straight will be up to the parents. Then gays will wither away.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
Hormonal disorder is more likely. I suspect that one day the root cause will be discovered and the choice of child being gay or straight will be up to the parents. Then gays will wither away.
Actually then gays will have the means to make more gays.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2013, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
Hormonal disorder is more likely. I suspect that one day the root cause will be discovered and the choice of child being gay or straight will be up to the parents. Then gays will wither away.
Actually then gays will have the means to make more gays.
And there'll be a strong uptick in the number of patricides.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2013, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
Hormonal disorder is more likely. I suspect that one day the root cause will be discovered and the choice of child being gay or straight will be up to the parents. Then gays will wither away.
Actually then gays will have the means to make more gays.
Unless they start giving birth, probably not. Parents are going to want to children that are like them, and most parents are going to be straight.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 10:04:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2013, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
Hormonal disorder is more likely. I suspect that one day the root cause will be discovered and the choice of child being gay or straight will be up to the parents. Then gays will wither away.
Actually then gays will have the means to make more gays.
Unless they start giving birth, probably not. Parents are going to want to children that are like them, and most parents are going to be straight.
So you've never heard of surrogacy?
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:16:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 10:04:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2013, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
Hormonal disorder is more likely. I suspect that one day the root cause will be discovered and the choice of child being gay or straight will be up to the parents. Then gays will wither away.
Actually then gays will have the means to make more gays.
Unless they start giving birth, probably not. Parents are going to want to children that are like them, and most parents are going to be straight.
So you've never heard of surrogacy?
Yeah, and how common is that? What do you suppose the ratio of surrogacy to ordinary births? I'd imagine pretty low. I imagine the number of gays with the money and interest in creating gay children through surrogacy isn't very high. Doing a quick google check (which sadly ended with the daily mail) there was 1,600 surrogate births in the US in 2010. Maybe 5,000 in the world.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 10:55:42 AM
I'd imagine pretty low. I imagine the number of gays with the money and interest in creating gay children through surrogacy isn't very high.
Well you can't currently select to have a gay child. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on June 20, 2013, 10:59:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 10:55:42 AM
I'd imagine pretty low. I imagine the number of gays with the money and interest in creating gay children through surrogacy isn't very high.
Well you can't currently select to have a gay child. :huh:
In the future, I suspect you will be able to. If homosexuality is indeed inborn, then it logically it can be altered. If it can be altered, then there were will drastically fewer gays in the future.
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:16:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 10:04:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2013, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
Hormonal disorder is more likely. I suspect that one day the root cause will be discovered and the choice of child being gay or straight will be up to the parents. Then gays will wither away.
Actually then gays will have the means to make more gays.
Unless they start giving birth, probably not. Parents are going to want to children that are like them, and most parents are going to be straight.
So you've never heard of surrogacy?
Or lesbians? I know several gays who have given birth.
Enough to keep the current population of gays stable?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 12:07:38 PM
Enough to keep the current population of gays stable?
Depends on how motivated they are :P
But they could.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2013, 12:10:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 12:07:38 PM
Enough to keep the current population of gays stable?
Depends on how motivated they are :P
But they could.
They could, but they won't. You and I both know that.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 12:13:25 PM
They could, but they won't. You and I both know that.
You claim to know an awful lot about something no one else would dare claim.
I imagine by the time such a "cure" is available to the masses few will care enough to use it.
Quote from: Maximus on June 20, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
I imagine by the time such a "cure" is available to the masses few will care enough to use it.
God, I hope so!
Quote from: Maximus on June 20, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
I imagine by the time such a "cure" is available to the masses few will care enough to use it.
I wonder about that - I might think that if you offered a gay person a complications-free way of becoming "normal" a non-insignificant number of them would take it.
As you can see from groups like Exodus there are gays who wish they weren't. And in general, people are often not satisfied with themselves and will go to great length, including therapy, pills, and surgery, to re-make themselves.
Quote from: Maximus on June 20, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
I imagine by the time such a "cure" is available to the masses few will care enough to use it.
Eh plenty of the masses today are not as petrified of having gay kids as Raz seems to think they are.
You may be right BB, but I doubt it would be a one way street if it was that trivial a choice to make.
Quote from: Barrister on June 20, 2013, 12:36:57 PM
Quote from: Maximus on June 20, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
I imagine by the time such a "cure" is available to the masses few will care enough to use it.
I wonder about that - I might think that if you offered a gay person a complications-free way of becoming "normal" a non-insignificant number of them would take it.
As you can see from groups like Exodus there are gays who wish they weren't. And in general, people are often not satisfied with themselves and will go to great length, including therapy, pills, and surgery, to re-make themselves.
Given that so many prefer to try to be "normal" due to external pressure, take away the pressure and the numbers will likely dwindle... don't you think?
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2013, 12:38:59 PM
You may be right BB, but I doubt it would be a one way street if it was that trivial a choice to make.
I wonder how many fathers would want their daughters to be lesbians. :D
I'm just saying, if you can cure homosexuality at conception as if you were selecting eye colour or that sort of thing, how many parents wouldn't check the box to have a normal, healthy child rather than a Martinus-esque monster?
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 12:39:05 PM
Given that so many prefer to try to be "normal" due to external pressure, take away the pressure and the numbers will likely dwindle... don't you think?
Heh. If there was a complication-free way of hopping between sexual orientations the numbers doing so would probably explode. But probably not for the reasons BB and you as suggesting.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2013, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 12:39:05 PM
Given that so many prefer to try to be "normal" due to external pressure, take away the pressure and the numbers will likely dwindle... don't you think?
Heh. If there was a complication-free way of hopping between sexual orientations the numbers doing so would probably explode. But probably not for the reasons BB and you as suggesting.
I admit that there have been times that I'd wished that I were bisexual, but usually that came after a bad breakup with a really crappy guy... :blush:
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 12:50:50 PM
I admit that there have been times that I'd wished that I were bisexual, but usually that came after a bad breakup with a really crappy guy... :blush:
There were times when I would stop and think 'could dating men really be worse than this?' and conclude it very possibly might be :P
But hey I would have had a chance to test that out. I can see the profiles on match.com now 'Man seeking women on odd days, men on even days'
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2013, 12:38:14 PM
Quote from: Maximus on June 20, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
I imagine by the time such a "cure" is available to the masses few will care enough to use it.
Eh plenty of the masses today are not as petrified of having gay kids as Raz seems to think they are.
No, but most parents want kids that are like them, and most parents are straight.
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 12:36:06 PM
Quote from: Maximus on June 20, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
I imagine by the time such a "cure" is available to the masses few will care enough to use it.
God, I hope so!
Why?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 01:42:53 PM
Why?
Because I don't believe that homosexuality is a negative quality nor something to be "cured", anymore than blue eyes or brown eyes are. And I dislike the idea of designer children.
You're wrong.
Quote from: Maximus on June 20, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
I imagine by the time such a "cure" is available to the masses few will care enough to use it.
You think attitudes will change relatively quickly in the developing world?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: Maximus on June 20, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
I imagine by the time such a "cure" is available to the masses few will care enough to use it.
You think attitudes will change relatively quickly in the developing world?
They have change immensely in my lifetime in my city.
When I was a kid, the cops used to take people they caught who were visibly gay to deserted places on the lakeshore and beat the shit out of them (the infamous "Cherry Beach Express"). Lots of people thought the cops were doing a good job, cleaning up the 'trash' by discouraging 'open displays of perversion'.
Nowadays, the mayor marches at the head of the Pride parade and the city advertises itself as a marriage destination for gays with cash.
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 02:04:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 01:42:53 PM
Why?
Because I don't believe that homosexuality is a negative quality nor something to be "cured", anymore than blue eyes or brown eyes are. And I dislike the idea of designer children.
You are against the right of parents to choose?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2013, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: Maximus on June 20, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
I imagine by the time such a "cure" is available to the masses few will care enough to use it.
You think attitudes will change relatively quickly in the developing world?
I'm thinking of a technology change in the next 5-10 years. Even if the entire developing world wants gay kids (unlikely), the rest of the world may not.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 06:27:54 PM
You are against the right of parents to choose?
One can hope something won't happen without feeling the need to outlaw it.
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 06:58:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 06:27:54 PM
You are against the right of parents to choose?
One can hope something won't happen without feeling the need to outlaw it.
We do seem to have a strange notion here that if you don't like something, you must be for banning it.
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 06:58:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 06:27:54 PM
You are against the right of parents to choose?
One can hope something won't happen without feeling the need to outlaw it.
You can hope, but lets be realistic here. People don't have to be anti-gay to want children that are like them. It's a very common and possibly natural urge. And many parents look forward to having grandchildren. And that's ignoring social, and mental problems that often come with homosexuality.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 07:14:34 PM
You can hope, but lets be realistic here. People don't have to be anti-gay to want children that are like them. It's a very common and possibly natural urge. And many parents look forward to having grandchildren. And that's ignoring social, and mental problems that often come with homosexuality.
Many != all. The point is that I hope that the social and mental problems will be gone by the time this kind of technology is useful because it will be considered just as "normal" to be homosexual as it is to be heterosexual.
Well, I know you've claimed this isn't true for you, but many people are driven to want children by the biological imperative and that's what makes them willing to put up with the sacrifices it entails. Clearly offspring who are likely to reproduce themselves even if by accident are preferable to ones who take an act of will(and may just as soon settle for raising their partner's or some random strangers spawn) from that point of view.
But I doubt there is a "cure" for homosexuality in the genes anyway.
I'd think with homosexuality being a tick box a lot of parents would choose a straight kid.
A lot of the time I don't think it would be so much that a kid is gay which is the problem, but that due to being gay the prospect of grandkids has been cut off. The line ends with them.
Quote
But I doubt there is a "cure" for homosexuality in the genes anyway.
Yeah, I think it is mostly a case of nurture over nature.
Though I would be willing to believe that the chance of a kid being gay can be reduced through genetic tampering.
Dang, time to find a new charity.
At least I finally got some kind of response with that.
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2013, 10:46:58 PM
Yeah, I think it is mostly a case of nurture over nature.
Though I would be willing to believe that the chance of a kid being gay can be reduced through genetic tampering.
Oh dear god in heaven, shut the fuck up, will you, until you know what the fuck you're talking about?
If it were nurture over nature, don't you think these groups would have seen results instead of now apologizing for destroying lives for several decades?? It is not a choice. It's not a "teaching". It's who a person is, inside and out, from birth on.
It may not be genetic, but it is most assuradly NOT "nature vs nurture", you dithering idiot. Christ, it's ignorance like that that has held people back for so long. :glare:
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:59:29 AM
If it were nurture over nature, don't you think these groups would have seen results instead of now apologizing for destroying lives for several decades??
I believe these groups tend to work with adults or adolescents. And of course the theories on the "nurture" side typically don't say that people are gay because they were told it was ok or straight because they were told it wasn't. So don't see how the failure of these programs says anything of the sort.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 09:25:36 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:59:29 AM
If it were nurture over nature, don't you think these groups would have seen results instead of now apologizing for destroying lives for several decades??
I believe these groups tend to work with adults or adolescents. And of course the theories on the "nurture" side typically don't say that people are gay because they were told it was ok or straight because they were told it wasn't. So don't see how the failure of these programs says anything of the sort.
Sorry, but I know you're not that stupid, ie this trolling is obvious.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 09:25:36 AM
I believe these groups tend to work with adults or adolescents. And of course the theories on the "nurture" side typically don't say that people are gay because they were told it was ok or straight because they were told it wasn't. So don't see how the failure of these programs says anything of the sort.
What do the theories on the "nurture" side say? There are predictable and reproduceable environmental elements that determine sexuality? Hmmm...
Have we located the "gay gene" yet that Raz can exclude it from his designer babies?
I'd say the evidence regarding homosexual affinity is inconclusive. But clearly homosexual activity highly varies depending on environmental factors.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 09:47:12 AM
But clearly homosexual activity highly varies depending on environmental factors.
Low light and soft music?
QuoteHave we located the "gay gene" yet that Raz can exclude it from his designer babies?
The theory is that it is hormonal. Thus it would be predictable and repoduceable and thus an actual, you know, theory. Not some vague mumbo-jumbo.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:59:29 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2013, 10:46:58 PM
Yeah, I think it is mostly a case of nurture over nature.
Though I would be willing to believe that the chance of a kid being gay can be reduced through genetic tampering.
Oh dear god in heaven, shut the fuck up, will you, until you know what the fuck you're talking about?
If it were nurture over nature, don't you think these groups would have seen results instead of now apologizing for destroying lives for several decades?? It is not a choice. It's not a "teaching". It's who a person is, inside and out, from birth on.
It may not be genetic, but it is most assuradly NOT "nature vs nurture", you dithering idiot. Christ, it's ignorance like that that has held people back for so long. :glare:
:lmfao:
You clearly know nothing of nature vs nurture.
As Mr.Wiggin says they're dealing with adults with fully formed personalities. Well beyond the point of nurture.
I'd say its the born this way, its in the genes, crowd that do far more to hold people back. Saying its all in the genes makes it sound like a simple problem for which an off switch can be found, as opposed to a really complicated part of a person's psyche.
So, if it's hormonal, can we cure adult gays, or is the damage already done by then? Would a cure have to be applied at a particular point in their development?
I suppose theories aren't like assholes, in that I don't actually have one. I'm just skeptical of the conventional pc dogma that one's sexuality is already determined at birth.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:59:29 AM
Oh dear god in heaven, shut the fuck up, will you, until you know what the fuck you're talking about?
If it were nurture over nature, don't you think these groups would have seen results instead of now apologizing for destroying lives for several decades?? It is not a choice. It's not a "teaching". It's who a person is, inside and out, from birth on.
It may not be genetic, but it is most assuradly NOT "nature vs nurture", you dithering idiot. Christ, it's ignorance like that that has held people back for so long. :glare:
You really need to take a chill pill Meri. :huh:
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2013, 10:46:58 PM
I'd think with homosexuality being a tick box a lot of parents would choose a straight kid.
A lot of the time I don't think it would be so much that a kid is gay which is the problem, but that due to being gay the prospect of grandkids has been cut off. The line ends with them.
That's silly. If the technology is cheap enough for everyone to choose which embryo to carry to term, lesbians can use it just as well to have gay children with their own genetic material. And if you are gay, you can always use a surrogate mother.
I think that what will happen is that by the time the ability to determine the sexual orientation of a child is determined, sexual orientation will no longer be the big important social marker it is today, and so few will care.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 06:27:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 02:04:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2013, 01:42:53 PM
Why?
Because I don't believe that homosexuality is a negative quality nor something to be "cured", anymore than blue eyes or brown eyes are. And I dislike the idea of designer children.
You are against the right of parents to choose?
I am against the "right" of a parent to genetically manipulate a child. Most emphatically yes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 10:01:38 AM
I suppose theories aren't like assholes, in that I don't actually have one. I'm just skeptical of the conventional pc dogma that one's sexuality is already determined at birth.
What would you find convincing?
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2013, 09:58:34 AM
:lmfao:
You clearly know nothing of nature vs nurture.
As Mr.Wiggin says they're dealing with adults with fully formed personalities. Well beyond the point of nurture.
I'd say its the born this way, its in the genes, crowd that do far more to hold people back. Saying its all in the genes makes it sound like a simple problem for which an off switch can be found, as opposed to a really complicated part of a person's psyche.
Yeah you are clearly some expert here :lol:
Genes are so very very simple eh? I was not even aware people were big on the gene bandwagon but rather is was some sort of hormonal effect.
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2013, 10:18:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2013, 09:58:34 AM
:lmfao:
You clearly know nothing of nature vs nurture.
As Mr.Wiggin says they're dealing with adults with fully formed personalities. Well beyond the point of nurture.
I'd say its the born this way, its in the genes, crowd that do far more to hold people back. Saying its all in the genes makes it sound like a simple problem for which an off switch can be found, as opposed to a really complicated part of a person's psyche.
Yeah you are clearly some expert here :lol:
Genes are so very very simple eh? I was not even aware people were big on the gene bandwagon but rather is was some sort of hormonal effect.
That's the most prevalent theory, yes. He's a moron.
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2013, 10:18:47 AM
Yeah you are clearly some expert here :lol:
Genes are so very very simple eh? I was not even aware people were big on the gene bandwagon but rather is was some sort of hormonal effect.
I'm not an expert but I know what nature vs. nurture means.
Genes aren't simple but they're far more quantifiable than psychology.
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2013, 10:17:08 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 10:01:38 AM
I suppose theories aren't like assholes, in that I don't actually have one. I'm just skeptical of the conventional pc dogma that one's sexuality is already determined at birth.
What would you find convincing?
I was unaware that the current dogma was that sexuality is determined at birth. Rather, the common view seems to be that sexual orientation is not fixed at all but has a certain amount of flexibility within a wide range of factors.
Not withstanding what Lada Gaga might entitle one of her songs :P
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2013, 10:23:39 AM
I'm not an expert but I know what nature vs. nurture means.
Genes aren't simple but they're far more quantifiable than psychology.
Tyr, I'm well-versed in what nature vs nurture means. I even know how to apply it, given that I have raised four children. However, what you're talking about is absolute fucking nonsense. If being homosexual truly were how one was raised, then one would never find gay men in he-man families, and yet, one does. Being gay does not show a pattern in how people are raised, by whom, or where. What DOES show up, however, is that homosexuals are more likely to HIDE the fact that they are gay in highly Christian, anti-gay households. They may try to live as a straight person. They may marry, have children, and try to function in society as a "normal" person. That does not, however change who they are attracted to sexually.
It's an antiquated notion that how a person is raised determines whether they are gay or straight, and you're an idiot for continuing to believe it given the studies that abound that prove otherwise.
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2013, 10:23:39 AM
I'm not an expert but I know what nature vs. nurture means.
Genes aren't simple but they're far more quantifiable than psychology.
Well clearly it is quantifiable enough to be declared impossible to change at some point. To me that suggests a far larger nature role than psychology.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:27:04 AM
Rather, the common view seems to be that sexual orientation is not fixed at all but has a certain amount of flexibility within a wide range of factors
Do have some articles on this common view and what these factors might be? And what exactly do we mean by a certain amount of flexibility? "Not fixed at all" seems a bit strong considering the failure of the anti-gay treatments.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:27:04 AM
I was unaware that the current dogma was that sexuality is determined at birth. Rather, the common view seems to be that sexual orientation is not fixed at all but has a certain amount of flexibility within a wide range of factors.
Not withstanding what Lada Gaga might entitle one of her songs :P
That's my understanding as well. It's by no means binary (or trinary if you include bisexuals) but rather a spectrum of attractions. From what I understand, however, that spectrum is believed to be a result of the level of a number of hormones in utero prior to birth. There are some studies indicating that hormones post-birth through the first couple of years of life may also play a factor.
So far as I'm aware, however, there are no studies by legitiment scholars that show how one is raised affects one's sexuality.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2013, 10:23:39 AM
I'm not an expert but I know what nature vs. nurture means.
Genes aren't simple but they're far more quantifiable than psychology.
Tyr, I'm well-versed in what nature vs nurture means. I even know how to apply it, given that I have raised four children. However, what you're talking about is absolute fucking nonsense. If being homosexual truly were how one was raised, then one would never find gay men in he-man families, and yet, one does. Being gay does not show a pattern in how people are raised, by whom, or where. What DOES show up, however, is that homosexuals are more likely to HIDE the fact that they are gay in highly Christian, anti-gay households. They may try to live as a straight person. They may marry, have children, and try to function in society as a "normal" person. That does not, however change who they are attracted to sexually.
It's an antiquated notion that how a person is raised determines whether they are gay or straight, and you're an idiot for continuing to believe it given the studies that abound that prove otherwise.
How a person is raised determines most aspects of their personality. However it is not as simple as you seem to believe.
Its not as basic as give a boy barbie dolls and he will grow up gay, its bizzare to think you belive the old Freudian notion of overbearing mothers and direct simplistic psychological development is somehow a belief someone would have. Its much more complicated than that. Minute childhood experiences and combinations of a myriad of factors in a kid's environment can have all sorts of outcomes for what sort of person they become. I really don't see people ever fully getting a grasp of that, there's just too many millions of individual events in a kid's early life and there is no way of knowing which will stick and how their combinations will direct the development of a personality.
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2013, 10:42:32 AM
How a person is raised determines most aspects of their personality. However it is not as simple as you seem to believe.
Its not as basic as give a boy barbie dolls and he will grow up gay, its bizzare to think you belive the old Freudian notion of overbearing mothers and direct simplistic psychological development is somehow a belief someone would have. Its much more complicated than that. Minute childhood experiences and combinations of a myriad of factors in a kid's environment can have all sorts of outcomes for what sort of person they become. I really don't see people ever fully getting a grasp of that, there's just too many millions of individual events in a kid's early life and there is no way of knowing which will stick and how their combinations will direct the development of a personality.
No shit, Tyr.
Now show me a single study that proves your theory. A single one, by a reputable scientist.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 10:34:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:27:04 AM
I was unaware that the current dogma was that sexuality is determined at birth. Rather, the common view seems to be that sexual orientation is not fixed at all but has a certain amount of flexibility within a wide range of factors.
Not withstanding what Lada Gaga might entitle one of her songs :P
That's my understanding as well. It's by no means binary (or trinary if you include bisexuals) but rather a spectrum of attractions. From what I understand, however, that spectrum is believed to be a result of the level of a number of hormones in utero prior to birth. There are some studies indicating that hormones post-birth through the first couple of years of life may also play a factor.
So far as I'm aware, however, there are no studies by legitiment scholars that show how one is raised affects one's sexuality.
Wait what?
So you go off at me for suggesting nurture has a part and here you are doing the same.
Quote
Now show me a single study that proves your theory. A single one, by a reputable scientist.
I don't have a university acccount atm. Can't go do an article search for you. There are however examples out there of identical twins where one is gay and one straight. Which is pretty much all the proof you need.
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2013, 10:48:16 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 10:34:21 AM
That's my understanding as well. It's by no means binary (or trinary if you include bisexuals) but rather a spectrum of attractions. From what I understand, however, that spectrum is believed to be a result of the level of a number of hormones in utero prior to birth. There are some studies indicating that hormones post-birth through the first couple of years of life may also play a factor.
So far as I'm aware, however, there are no studies by legitiment scholars that show how one is raised affects one's sexuality.
Wait what?
So you go off at me for suggesting nurture has a part and here you are doing the same.
:huh:
Hormones aren't "nurture". They're "nature".
Quote
I don't have a university acccount atm. Can't go do an article search for you. There are however examples out there of identical twins where one is gay and one straight. Which is pretty much all the proof you need.
No, that's proof that it's not 100% genetic. It proves nothing else.
If I inject someone with hormones that's nature? OK.
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2013, 10:48:16 AM
There are however examples out there of identical twins where one is gay and one straight. Which is pretty much all the proof you need.
:bleeding:
Yeah wtf. They are hardly identical in that case.
A difficult fact for the 100% nature school is the slight increase in probability of being gay if one is the 2nd son.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 12:01:22 PM
A difficult fact for the 100% nature school is the slight increase in probability of being gay if one is the 2nd son.
Actually, from what I've read, that falls under the "hormone" study. A mother's hormonal structure changes with each subsequent pregnancy, so each child she has will have different hormones than the one before.
By the way, I definitely fall under the "spectrum" way of thinking, in which case nurture is important, too. At that point, it boils down to how accepting the person's parents are to the individual's personal preferences, regardless of where they fall on the spectrum. A man who finds a very specific type of man attractive (say only very feminine ones or transvestites) may be more likely to consider himself bi-sexual if he doesn't risk alienation by his family, whereas the same man may not if he risks his family despising him for that choice.
Quote from: The Brain on June 21, 2013, 11:45:27 AM
If I inject someone with hormones that's nature? OK.
Are you suggesting that you are unnatural?
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 12:07:12 PM
Actually, from what I've read, that falls under the "hormone" study. A mother's hormonal structure changes with each subsequent pregnancy, so each child she has will have different hormones than the one before.
Then why is it only the second son?
From what I have read the chance increases with each subsequent son.
Or probably rather with each subsequent child if it is male.
Definitely what I read was for 2nd male children only.
More 2nd kids exist than 3rd kids. More 3rd than 4th. Etc. It's gonna decline after the 2nd simply due to numbers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 12:40:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 12:07:12 PM
Actually, from what I've read, that falls under the "hormone" study. A mother's hormonal structure changes with each subsequent pregnancy, so each child she has will have different hormones than the one before.
Then why is it only the second son?
Where did you hear this? I understood it to be each subsequent son.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 21, 2013, 12:52:18 PM
More 2nd kids exist than 3rd kids. More 3rd than 4th. Etc. It's gonna decline after the 2nd simply due to numbers.
We're talking about probabilities/percentages, not absolute numbers.
Meri: Don't know. It was a long time ago.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 21, 2013, 12:52:18 PM
More 2nd kids exist than 3rd kids. More 3rd than 4th. Etc. It's gonna decline after the 2nd simply due to numbers.
It's specific to boys, too, which really lessens the numbers.
So far as I know, there are very few studies on lesbians, so even less understanding on how they come to be.
My second son is a giant. He is wearing two year old clothes at 10 months and is basically the same size as his brother. So..defintely a bear.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 12:55:28 PM
We're talking about probabilities/percentages, not absolute numbers.
Meri: Don't know. It was a long time ago.
It's an older study (about 10 years or so), but here:
http://classes.biology.ucsd.edu/bisp194-1.FA09/Blanchard_2001.pdf
QuoteIn men, sexual orientation correlates with an individual's number of older brothers, each additional older brother increasing the odds of homosexuality by approximately 33%. It has been hypothesized that this fraternal birth order effect reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to Y-linked minor histocompatibility antigens (H-Y antigens) by each succeeding male fetus and the concomitantly increasing effects of such maternal immunization on the future sexual orientation of each succeeding male fetus. According to this hypothesis, anti-H-Y antibodies produced by the mother pass through the placental barrier to the fetus and affect aspects of sexual differentiation in the fetal brain.
This explanation is consistent with a variety of evidence, including the apparent irrelevance of older sisters to the sexual orientation of later born males, the probable involvement of H-Y antigen in the development of sextypical traits, and the detrimental effects of immunization of female mice to H-Y antigen on the reproductive performance of subsequent male offspring. The maternal immune hypothesis might also explain the recent finding that heterosexual males with older brothers weigh less at birth than heterosexual males with older sisters and homosexual males with older brothers weigh even less than heterosexual males with older brothers.
:hmm:
I could have misremembered.
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2013, 12:56:28 PM
My second son is a giant. He is wearing two year old clothes at 10 months and is basically the same size as his brother. So..defintely a bear.
Well I am a fifth son so... :P
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 12:59:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 12:55:28 PM
We're talking about probabilities/percentages, not absolute numbers.
Meri: Don't know. It was a long time ago.
It's an older study (about 10 years or so), but here:
http://classes.biology.ucsd.edu/bisp194-1.FA09/Blanchard_2001.pdf
QuoteIn men, sexual orientation correlates with an individual's number of older brothers, each additional older brother increasing the odds of homosexuality by approximately 33%. It has been hypothesized that this fraternal birth order effect reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to Y-linked minor histocompatibility antigens (H-Y antigens) by each succeeding male fetus and the concomitantly increasing effects of such maternal immunization on the future sexual orientation of each succeeding male fetus. According to this hypothesis, anti-H-Y antibodies produced by the mother pass through the placental barrier to the fetus and affect aspects of sexual differentiation in the fetal brain.
This explanation is consistent with a variety of evidence, including the apparent irrelevance of older sisters to the sexual orientation of later born males, the probable involvement of H-Y antigen in the development of sextypical traits, and the detrimental effects of immunization of female mice to H-Y antigen on the reproductive performance of subsequent male offspring. The maternal immune hypothesis might also explain the recent finding that heterosexual males with older brothers weigh less at birth than heterosexual males with older sisters and homosexual males with older brothers weigh even less than heterosexual males with older brothers.
It occurs to me that this would mean that religious conservatives who tend to have bigger families would actually be more likely to have gay sons.
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2013, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2013, 10:48:16 AM
There are however examples out there of identical twins where one is gay and one straight. Which is pretty much all the proof you need.
:bleeding:
Bleeding? WTF?
I'm speaking about genetically identical twins here. Their well recorded existence proves my point.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:08:32 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2013, 10:48:16 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 10:34:21 AM
That's my understanding as well. It's by no means binary (or trinary if you include bisexuals) but rather a spectrum of attractions. From what I understand, however, that spectrum is believed to be a result of the level of a number of hormones in utero prior to birth. There are some studies indicating that hormones post-birth through the first couple of years of life may also play a factor.
So far as I'm aware, however, there are no studies by legitiment scholars that show how one is raised affects one's sexuality.
Wait what?
So you go off at me for suggesting nurture has a part and here you are doing the same.
:huh:
Hormones aren't "nurture". They're "nature".
No, its an environmental factor, its nurture.
Quote
No, that's proof that it's not 100% genetic. It proves nothing else.
Which is what I said and you took issue with.
I just remember the stuff that Fate was talking about. He seemed to know his shit on medical stuff. This struck me as interesting because gay rights activists have been arguing for years that being homosexual is not a choice, but something someone is born with. If this is true, then doctors should theoretically be able to alter sexuality prenatally. If that happens then it's likely homosexuality will become extremely rare in the next 100 years as parents will probably choose to have straight children over gay ones for a whole myriad of reasons.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2013, 01:15:59 AM
I just remember the stuff that Fate was talking about. He seemed to know his shit on medical stuff. This struck me as interesting because
He is normally an unabashed troll?
Fate caught a lot of shit because he wanted to satirize Republicans during the Obama/McCain race and it just rubbed people the wrong way.
Fate is a fine upstanding citizen and doesn't deserve the bad rap he caught.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2013, 01:48:54 AM
Fate caught a lot of shit because he wanted to satirize Republicans during the Obama/McCain race and it just rubbed people the wrong way.
Fate is a fine upstanding citizen and doesn't deserve the bad rap he caught.
He'd already had that act for several years.
And if he really wanted to rehabilitate his image on the forum, he'd need to participate in it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2013, 01:48:54 AM
Fate caught a lot of shit because he wanted to satirize Republicans during the Obama/McCain race and it just rubbed people the wrong way.
Fate is a fine upstanding citizen and doesn't deserve the bad rap he caught.
Fate tried to troll as a Republican, and did it poorly. He's studying to be a doctor, so he's genuinely a bad person, but I suppose he knows medical stuff.
Just because the medical field all agree on your nutty ass doesn't make them bad Razzle.
Quote from: katmai on June 22, 2013, 04:17:04 PM
Just because the medical field all agree on your nutty ass doesn't make them bad Razzle.
Studying to be a doctor doesn't make one an expert either, though DSB may disagree.
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2013, 04:58:33 PM
Studying to be a doctor doesn't make one an expert either, though DSB may disagree.
I'd object to this, but I'd be worried about starting a recursive loop. :hmm:
Quote from: katmai on June 22, 2013, 04:17:04 PM
Just because the medical field all agree on your nutty ass doesn't make them bad Razzle.
No it's the cutting up people that makes him bad.
Quote from: Tyr on June 21, 2013, 11:42:15 PM
No, that's proof that it's not 100% genetic. It proves nothing else.
Not a single person was arguing that. That was a strawman you built and went on about.
Why would it being nurture make you be able to change it? Chopping off an arm is nurture, doesn't mean you can grow it back.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
Why would it being nurture make you be able to change it? Chopping off an arm is nurture, doesn't mean you can grow it back.
It means that there is something in raising the children and the environment that causes it. Of course it that was true why would children being raised in the same environment and the same people result in some being gay and some not? Why would it result in second and third sons and so forth have a slightly higher chance?
If it was true then all Exodus and the groups like it would need to do was intervene earlier and find the correct environmental triggers and correct them. You know, if you want to prevent arms being cut off best to intervene with people who still have both arms.
Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2013, 10:08:52 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
Why would it being nurture make you be able to change it? Chopping off an arm is nurture, doesn't mean you can grow it back.
It means that there is something in raising the children and the environment that causes it. Of course it that was true why would children being raised in the same environment and the same people result in some being gay and some not? Why would it result in second and third sons and so forth have a slightly higher chance?
If it was true then all Exodus and the groups like it would need to do was intervene earlier and find the correct environmental triggers and correct them. You know, if you want to prevent arms being cut off best to intervene with people who still have both arms.
As the name implies Exodus was about changing homosexuals.
Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2013, 10:08:52 AM
It means that there is something in raising the children and the environment that causes it. Of course it that was true why would children being raised in the same environment and the same people result in some being gay and some not? Why would it result in second and third sons and so forth have a slightly higher chance?
You can never cross the same river twice.
It also is a little too much for my brain to comprehend that a kid who grows in an environment where gays are barely talked about except to refer to them as just about the worst thing you could be, where heterosexuality is advanced as the proper way God intended it would become gay...while a kid who is raised by two gay dads and spends his life being taken to pride events and spends his life amongst gay adults would then become straight. I mean if it is these environmental factors how would the first lead to gayness while the other one would not? I mean these environmental factors must be the most incomprehensible and most subtle and most mysterious factors in the history of psychology.
And I tend to be pretty predisposed to nature anyway. So much of your personality is pretty evident almost from birth, babies even in the same families vary so much. So I think it tends to get downplayed in people's desire to shape people to their liking.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2013, 10:18:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2013, 10:08:52 AM
It means that there is something in raising the children and the environment that causes it. Of course it that was true why would children being raised in the same environment and the same people result in some being gay and some not? Why would it result in second and third sons and so forth have a slightly higher chance?
You can never cross the same river twice.
A rolling stone gathers no moss.
Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2013, 10:08:52 AM
It means that there is something in raising the children and the environment that causes it. Of course it that was true why would children being raised in the same environment and the same people result in some being gay and some not? Why would it result in second and third sons and so forth have a slightly higher chance?
They're in roughly the same environment but they have different environmental factors at play. One has an older brother, one a younger brother for instance. Not to mention all the tiny little experiences they have being differnet.
Quote
If it was true then all Exodus and the groups like it would need to do was intervene earlier and find the correct environmental triggers and correct them. You know, if you want to prevent arms being cut off best to intervene with people who still have both arms.
Exodus and the like work with adults. They're already fully formed people.
In theory I suppose it might be possible to work out which factors increase the odds of homosexuality and which decrease it, but in practice that would be a pretty impossible experiment to set up. You'd need dozens of (clone) kids in minutely controlled Truman Showesque environments being raised by hyper advanced robots.
QuoteIt also is a little too much for my brain to comprehend that a kid who grows in an environment where gays are barely talked about except to refer to them as just about the worst thing you could be, where heterosexuality is advanced as the proper way God intended it would become gay...while a kid who is raised by two gay dads and spends his life being taken to pride events and spends his life amongst gay adults would then become straight. I mean if it is these environmental factors how would the first lead to gayness while the other one would not? I mean these environmental factors must be the most incomprehensible and most subtle and most mysterious factors in the history of psychology.
The first doesn't lead to gayness and the second doesn't stop it. There are lots of other factors.
And yes. It is pretty deep stuff. Its the ultimate quesiton of psychology really, what makes our personalities what they are.
Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2013, 10:20:31 AM
It also is a little too much for my brain to comprehend that a kid who grows in an environment where gays are barely talked about except to refer to them as just about the worst thing you could be, where heterosexuality is advanced as the proper way God intended it would become gay...while a kid who is raised by two gay dads and spends his life being taken to pride events and spends his life amongst gay adults would then become straight. I mean if it is these environmental factors how would the first lead to gayness while the other one would not? I mean these environmental factors must be the most incomprehensible and most subtle and most mysterious factors in the history of psychology.
Parents admonish their kids to do lots of things and kids frequently ignore them. Nobody is suggesting that the parents' views/teachings/rantings have any kind of direct impact like that.
Quote from: Tyr on June 23, 2013, 10:28:46 AM
Its the ultimate quesiton of psychology really, what makes our personalities what they are.
I'd say psychology is focused more broadly on why do people act the way they act, not stuck on personality traits.
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2013, 11:24:17 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 23, 2013, 10:28:46 AM
Its the ultimate quesiton of psychology really, what makes our personalities what they are.
I'd say psychology is focused more broadly on why do people act the way they act, not stuck on personality traits.
Really depends on the school.
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2013, 10:33:26 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:27:04 AM
Rather, the common view seems to be that sexual orientation is not fixed at all but has a certain amount of flexibility within a wide range of factors
Do have some articles on this common view and what these factors might be? And what exactly do we mean by a certain amount of flexibility? "Not fixed at all" seems a bit strong considering the failure of the anti-gay treatments.
Sure. A quick google search found this one. There are others also. The spouse of one of my partners did some research in this area which is the reason I knew about this.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-005-1795-9#page-2
This is a few years old now but you will notice it is one of the first studies which began to question the belief that sexuality was determined early on and which began to study the phenomenon that sexuality changes over time and is more flexible than people had previously thought.
I dont think this makes a good argument for "anti-gay" treatment. But it seems there is certainly good evidence that human sexuality is more complicated than simply being "fixed" at birth.