Gay Activist Anti-Protest Turns Violent....and Disgusting

[Teallaura]

What sort of shorthand language do you suggest we use for this approach?

Non-labeling. It's actually a very old approach - well, older than you, anyway.

Seriously, although, like anything, the thing can be taken way too far, there is merit in the idea that formal categorization of human beings can be detrimental and should be avoided in some instances. In particular, I think we need to be careful as individuals what labels we apply to ourselves - we wouldn't let a friend run around calling himself a loser so maybe we should at least confront potentially hazardous labels.

[Spartacus]

Non-labeling. It's actually a very old approach - well, older than you, anyway.

Seriously, although, like anything, the thing can be taken way too far, there is merit in the idea that formal categorization of human beings can be detrimental and should be avoided in some instances. In particular, I think we need to be careful as individuals what labels we apply to ourselves - we wouldn't let a friend run around calling himself a loser so maybe we should at least confront potentially hazardous labels.

Which brings us right back to "the love that dare not speak its name." You're right that it's an old approach, and it's one that history has discredited. It's just not possible in a mass society.

[fm93]

Well, I'll give you the fact that some are found visiting gay bars, and even renouncing the therapy, but then again, former drug addicts often either give into the desire and do the drugs again, or stop trying to get help entirely, so that's not exactly a good argument against it, as it's true of all therapy for serious disorders.

So the same-sex attractions, which conversion therapists said would go away and be replaced by opposite-sex attractions, didn't go away. Ergo, the therapy didn't work.

Then how do people become gay in the first place? We 'know' they aren't born this way, as we have no discovered a "gay gene", and such a thing would have been destroyed by natural selection hundreds of thousands of years ago.

We don't know yet, but there doesn't have to be a genetic basis for homosexuality to be inborn. Some researchers have speculated that it may be caused or influenced by prenatal hormones. If that's the case, then there wouldn't be a "gay gene," but people would still be born with it.

But it might not matter anyway. There are learned behaviors that appear to be enduring (i.e. imprinting on ducklings). Homosexual orientation could be similar--influenced by environmental factors but still unchangeable.

Yes there is. A staggering amount of gay people have either been attracted to women before, had sex with women before, or have been married to a woman before. Furthermore, they constantly show this within the majority of gay marriages, where one man plays the "husband", and the other plays the "wife.

What people who identify as gay say they used to be attracted to women?

Also, if scientists never had an agenda for this kind of stuff, then how do you explain all the research just 40 years ago that said that homosexuality was a mental disorder and could be changed? If you think all of that's wrong, then you'd have to admit that all those scientists either lied, or were biased to the point of not being able to make an honest assessment.

Or, they evaluated new research that demonstrated that their previous ideas were wrong, so they consequently corrected themselves.

[Bill the Cat]

What people who identify as gay say they used to be attracted to women?

Out of curiosity, what do you think "attraction" entails?

[Teallaura]

Which brings us right back to "the love that dare not speak its name." You're right that it's an old approach, and it's one that history has discredited. It's just not possible in a mass society.

Dear, how, exactly, did you get 'mass' from 'self'? This entire time I've been talking about how the individual self identifies - that 'self' bit being something of a clue - and the tangential of how we as Christians should or should not encourage such. You wanted a label for the thing and I gave you one - but at no time did I ever argue that society itself should prohibit anyone from labeling themselves as they please. Having the freedom to do so doesn't make it necessarily wise to do so - which was the discussion.

Nor did I ever argue that individuals should not admit to whatever struggle they have - or that they should hide/deny it. There's a HUGE difference between admitting you have an issue and wearing that issue as a banner. The former can be healthy; the latter most certainly is not.

[Spartacus]

This again? I think we're both done here

[Teallaura]

You were done pretty early on...