The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

[Spartacus]

...

What? That has nothing to do with what I was saying. If you think this thread is a waste of your. time, then don't read or post in it. No one's forcing you to participate.

I'm here partly because the thread amuses me, partly because it's like watching a train wreck. Two train wrecks, actually. Anyway, you have yet to explain why TT's point of view is harmful.

[Sparko]

TimelessTheist's argument that this is a double standard works only if there actually are different standards used to arrive at those opposite conclusions. But that isn't the case, which you'd realize if you'd actually read my post.

We have direct testimony from people who were heterosexually active and then switched to being homosexually active telling us that they indeed were gay back then and were trying to suppress their same-sex feelings. That's why people believe that "if someone behaves heterosexually then changes to homosexuality, it means they were always gay"--because of explicit testimony and admission. We also have direct testimony from people who were homosexually active and then switched to being heterosexually active telling us that they indeed still have same-sex feelings and are therefore by definition still gay. That's why people believe that "if someone behaves homosexually and then changes to heterosexuality, they...are still gay"--because of explicit testimony and admission. Notice how the phrasing in those two sentences is the same? That's because the SAME STANDARD is being applied consistently, which means that there is no double standard.

Derp.




ETA: Here's the post that you didn't bother to read.

so if you have some testimony from people that changed to being gay were always gay, then that means that nobody can change their orientation? That a few testimonies apply to everyone? And that if someone who is gay changes to being heterosexual, then testifies they still have thoughts about being gay that means that nobody can change from being gay to heterosexual?

Really?

and what about people who testify that they actually did change orientations? You simply sweep that under the rug?

[Zymologist]

and what about people who testify that they actually did change orientations? You simply sweep that under the rug?

These people appear to be simply dismissed as liars, AFAICT. Which is interesting.

[Kristian Joensen]

square_peg, is it possible for people to be mistaken about their sexuality? If so is it possible for hetereosexuals to mistakenly self-identify as homosexuals or is it only possible to be mistaken in the other direction? If the latter how come?

If it is not possible to be wrong about once's sexuality, then A) What is it that guarantees such infallability? B) Does that mean that people who "come out of the closet" experience a change in sexuality? If not, why not?

You maintain that sexuality is immutable, what law of nature prevents people from changing sexuality? What evidence is there for sexuality being immutable?

[fm93]

so if you have some testimony from people that changed to being gay were always gay, then that means that nobody can change their orientation?

I'm not 100% certain if literally nobody ever changed orientations, but we know that at least the vast majority of people cannot/did not, and we know this not because of "a few testimonies," but because of extensive data taken from years of study and research.

These people appear to be simply dismissed as liars, AFAICT. Which is interesting.

That's not what I've observed. I and the people who I've seen comment on this allow for the possibility of a few cases of genuine change here and there. However, it is false and harmful to teach that change is attainable for all or even most people.

square_peg, is it possible for people to be mistaken about their sexuality? If so is it possible for hetereosexuals to mistakenly self-identify as homosexuals or is it only possible to be mistaken in the other direction? If the latter how come?

I'm sure some bisexual people could mistakenly believe themselves to be exclusively gay or straight. But I'm not sure how exclusively gay or straight people could believe themselves to be the opposite. In the case of Neil Patrick Harris, he admitted that sleeping with women "left him feeling unsettled, as if [he'd] somehow done it wrong." He didn't mistakenly think he was straight.

If it is not possible to be wrong about once's sexuality, then A) What is it that guarantees such infallability?

How exactly could a man be mistaken about whether he's attracted to other men, or a woman being attracted to a woman?

B) Does that mean that people who "come out of the closet" experience a change in sexuality?

No, because they tend to say that they were scared/hesitant to publicly admit it but had already realized for a while that they were gay.

You maintain that sexuality is immutable, what law of nature prevents people from changing sexuality? What evidence is there for sexuality being immutable?

Technically there can be degrees of fluidity in sexuality, but it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for an exclusively gay person to become exclusively straight via some conscious choice. Why? Perhaps orientation is based in genetics or prenatal hormones and is just as unlikely to change as a color-blind person is to start seeing in full color.

[Sparko]

I'm not 100% certain if literally nobody ever changed orientations, but we know that at least the vast majority of people cannot/did not, and we know this not because of "a few testimonies," but because of extensive data taken from years of study and research.

Please provide this extensive data and years of research to us.

[Zymologist]

That's not what I've observed. I and the people who I've seen comment on this allow for the possibility of a few cases of genuine change here and there. However, it is false and harmful to teach that change is attainable for all or even most people.

Well, when you say things like:

Even if it (conversion therapy) wasn't harmful, data has shown that for at least the vast majority of people (if not all), it doesn't work.

It is directly associated with harm. It involves trying to suppress one's naturally-occurring thoughts and feelings and become something that one is not and can never be*, spending countless dollars and hours that ultimately reap nothing in return, and wasting personal energy and peace of mind on false hope.

and

There apparently aren't any confirmed cases of people who legitimately changed.

that's not the impression I get. "Ex-gay" people are never outright called liars (or deluded, or whatever), of course, but the implications seem quite clear to me.

But while a strong impression, it is just an impression that I've gotten.

*Bolding mine.

[Spartacus]

Even if "conversion therapy" is helpful to some, it is clearly not reliable generally. And what does that mean for the larger debate over homosexuality? Nothing, in the end.

[fm93]

Well, when you say things like:





and



that's not the impression I get. "Ex-gay" people are never outright called liars (or deluded, or whatever), of course, but the implications seem quite clear to me.

But while a strong impression, it is just an impression that I've gotten.

*Bolding mine.

Here's an analogy. I've heard plenty of reports of UFO sightings. I'm also aware that many of those cases were the result of mistaken perception or outright fabrication. So I'm justified in being skeptical when I hear the newest report of a UFO. But I can't be absolutely certain that literally ALL reports were mistaken or fraudulent, so although I remain skeptical, I say things like "the vast majority of (if not all) UFO sightings have been later found to be mistaken or fraudulent."

[Jedidiah]

I didn't claim that there was no correlation. I said that being gay doesn't make one INHERENTLY more likely to contract HIV.

You are correct here. The problem is not inherent, it is caused by the same mental illness that causes homosexuality in men.

[Jedidiah]

We have direct testimony from people who were heterosexually active and then switched to being homosexually active telling us that they indeed were gay back then and were trying to suppress their same-sex feelings.

I have the personal direct testimony of a high school buddy. He was always heterosexual and was attracted to women. He was happily married and had two sons. It was only after his wife died that he became attracted to men, never before.

[Jedidiah]

Please provide this extensive data and years of research to us.

It will be suspect if he has any.

[Teallaura]

Here's an analogy. I've heard plenty of reports of UFO sightings. I'm also aware that many of those cases were the result of mistaken perception or outright fabrication. So I'm justified in being skeptical when I hear the newest report of a UFO. But I can't be absolutely certain that literally ALL reports were mistaken or fraudulent, so although I remain skeptical, I say things like "the vast majority of (if not all) UFO sightings have been later found to be mistaken or fraudulent."

Even one 'real' ufo (I presume we mean alien craft here since not mistaken/fraudulent would be a very large pop) would prove the 'aliens are real' case and hence your dismissal might have been valid but it would mean you had dismissed the truth in favor of a falsehood - not exactly good logic there. Even one real conversion and the 'homosexuality is inherent' argument is false - inherent traits cannot be changed.

The huge amount of 'experimentation' in MSM/WSW/bisexual pops makes it extremely unlikely that homosexuality is indeed immutable. A number of studies have indicated otherwise - and no, not just those done by activist groups - and as late as last year the UK's version of the APA was backing off of immutabilty (albeit slightly). The case has not been well made (a LOT of really bad methodology) and it is not 'settled'. So yes, you can decide to maintain a personal position without further exploration - I do so on UFO's, actually - but in so doing you give up the right to argue for a truth position since you aren't doing the homework to really know what you're talking about.

And no, you won't get me into a debate on UFO's - I'm smart enough to know that my position isn't defensible in debate. It's only acceptable because no one can study everything.

[TimelessTheist]

We have direct testimony from people who were heterosexually active and then switched to being homosexually active telling us that they indeed were gay back then and were trying to suppress their same-sex feelings. That's why people believe that "if someone behaves heterosexually then changes to homosexuality, it means they were always gay"--because of explicit testimony and admission. We also have direct testimony from people who were homosexually active and then switched to being heterosexually active telling us that they indeed still have same-sex feelings and are therefore by definition still gay. That's why people believe that "if someone behaves homosexually and then changes to heterosexuality, they...are still gay"--because of explicit testimony and admission. Notice how the phrasing in those two sentences is the same? That's because the SAME STANDARD is being applied consistently, which means that there is no double standard.

You have one testimony from Neil Patrick Harris....furthermore, 'we' have testimony of people that claimed to have been gay in the past, but now claim to be straight, so, by your own standard, conversion therapy now has a case.

[Sparko]

still waiting for the extensive studies and years of research evidence that sexual orientation can't be changed.

and how is conversion therapy, if voluntary, be harmful?

2. It is directly associated with harm. It involves trying to suppress one's naturally-occurring thoughts and feelings and become something that one is not and can never be, spending countless dollars and hours that ultimately reap nothing in return, and wasting personal energy and peace of mind on false hope. Many patients have wound up with anxiety, loss of feeling, and even suicidality after undergoing "treatment."

That is like arguing that marriage therapy is harmful because it doesn't always work and it is trying to change someone's naturally-occurring thoughts and feelings if he is a serial adulterer.

Or that rehab therapy is harmful because it is not always successful in changing the behavior of addicts and alcoholics who usually return to their old habits.