I didn't say it was non-credible I said it hurts his credibility when he uses himself (even if a different book) as a reference. That is done in poor taste and even basic classes teaches one that lesson.
Other then that one reference all the rest check out just fine, a couple come up biased, but that is to be expected you can't get all the information from just one side of the fence you have to use both, and he does.
I still can't find the page where he has the 38% statistic or where he picked it up from. The conclusions at the end are also opinion(No source would make those assumptions if it didn't have an agenda, another point docked from credibility) and not supported by any statistics. Although it is presented in a factual sense.
Pepe: I disagree with the view because it views it as a "mental disease" which it is not. As evidenced by the 1970's(35 yrs ago we KNEW it wasn't(and isn't) a mental disease. Its sad some people can't actually understand that.) study from the APA, which the federal government, takes it advice from.
To clarify, I don't believe homosexuality is a mental disease or disorder. I agree it should have been taken off that list BUT there findings that homosexuality is irreversable are outlandish and flat-out incorrect. Change is possible.
My pastor is a nouthetic counselor - and his argument would be that the issue isn't mental disease, or habitat, or abusive person x or negligent parent y... the issue is sin.
Now, that isn't limited to the persons own personal sin... it is also the affect of sin on that persons life (abusive person x or negligent parent y).
Of course, being a nouthetic counselor - he approaches most problems in that fashion... and it isn't limited to homosexuality. Hetrosexual relationships can have just as sinful elements to them as homosexual...
So in response to people who might ask "why pick on homosexuality" - I try not to. It is an easier target because the sin is more visable than its hetrosexual counterparts - and the hetrosexual counterparts are more accepted in society.
Now, my opinion then - is everyone at least mildly bi-sexual? Yes - in that everone struggles with sin. Weather it be alcoholism, or fantisizing about guys - everyone sins. To find a study that says everyone falls in a continum isn't that earth shattering for me. Rather, it points out that everyone addresses that sin in their lives - and gives a gradient to how much that particular failing is affecting a particular person.
If I were to be honest and rate myself - I would put myself in the mildy currous position. I am happily married, and left to my own devices I would probably act on said curriosity. However, in saying this - I recognize the sin in myself for what it is - and with that recognition comes the responsibility to deal with it in an apropriate manner... to be consistant to my vows to my wife and love her until death do us part.
I'm probably a negative one on that Kinsey scale. I have never been attracted to another man. In fact, I will go to lengths NOT to see naked men.
And before you say anything, it's nature, not nuture. Period.
Edit: Well, not ALL men. I can admire a guy who is strong, or looks good, but the only time sexuality enters into it is when I think "Wow, he must get a lot of chicks." Thinking about them in any other way is nauseating for me...
Oh yea, don't get me wrong though. I have no problem with homos and bis, but I'm not one myself and it really annoys me when people think that I am, even 0.1%. Then I deny it and they blame it on culture and such. These people - that I know in real life - need to accept the fact that there is still such as thing as a straight man.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> On both sides of the issues, hence we're all a little bisexual. You answered the topic question. Good!
1. Of or relating to lawmaking; legislative. 2. Based on a system of law. 3. Of or relating to the philosophy of law. 4. Of or relating to the study or discovery of general scientific laws <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> @Pepe: I think you mean nomothetic counselor, which if he is.. that is an oxymoron. I can not think of a single government that would allow a pastor to be a nomothetic counselor, unless it is a really small town and they don't recongize seperation of church and state. Do not bring any form of religion into this thread it was doing so well and then you had to go and degrade everything from there. There was absolutely no mention of this to be debated morally. (Which is what all religions do) Not to mention bringing in an opinion from a pastor, that is almost as bad as your comment at the end of your Terry Schavio post. I'm dissappointed.
@DarkAti: If it was changable why would every single homosexual disagree with you(That wasn't pressured into changing themselves by society or peers), personally I prefer to take someones advice on it who is actually homosexual, rather then some heterosexual who thinks he knows everything. (NARTH, for example.)
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Edit: Well, not ALL men. I can admire a guy who is strong, or looks good, but the only time sexuality enters into it is when I think "Wow, he must get a lot of chicks." Thinking about them in any other way is nauseating for me... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> @TommyVercetti Exactly the kind of narrowminedness we are trying to get away from. Personally I find your view more disgusting then hetro/homo sexuals making out in public. You were taught it was "bad", which is why you think it is "nauseating".
@Tanathos: Yes, that would be correct, problem is one side is already thinking for both sides and I'll let you make your mind which one it is.
Hey - I offered a valid argument and a perspective that hadn't been mentioned in the thread - and suddenly I'm degrading it? Some peoples prejudice knows no bounds...
Also - he is not nomothetic - he is nouthetic.
<a href='http://www.nanc.org' target='_blank'>Just because Dictionary </a>dot com fails you doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 4 2005, 10:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 4 2005, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 4 2005, 07:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 4 2005, 07:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Did you look at the <i>context</i> in which he quotes himself? He's not throwing some "fact" out there, and supporting it merely with his own word. Rather, he starts the article by saying, "there are studies of identical twins and non-identical twins, and this article will focus on the identical twins, but I have also written about non-identical twin studies and if you care you can look that up in this other thing I wrote". That doesn't actually count as using himself as a reference, and does nothing to hurt his credibility. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Using himself as any sort of a reference even just to promote is own book is indeed hurting credibility. You must have not done many papers that required research.
If you were to turn do a paper on say sunblock for your senior year in highschool, and enjoyed it enought to re-do a paper in college the professor would laugh at you if you cited yourself as a reference. Same applies here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're missing the point. Its not a reference at all, because he isn't drawing any info from it for use in this paper. It's only point for being there is to make you aware that it exists, so you can go find it. So its self-publicity, and if you have a problem with self-publicity, then fine. But he's not using himself as a reference.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Athena+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Athena)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I'm going to say is that you're quoting NARTH. The "National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality." The name of the organization should already give you an indication of how biased of a site you're reading.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted, their <i>opinions</i> are most likely biased...although you can make the same accusation against most other groups with a stake in the matter, including the APA. However, that doesn't autmatically invalidate their scientific studies, which still have plenty of credibility. And the studies are referenced and cited in that article, so you can see exactly where they got their data from. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Calling the APA biased is calling the cauldron black.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Um...you are aware cauldrons <i>are</i> black right? I think you're mixing your metaphors. You're probably looking for the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black", which isn't a way of saying that the kettle <i>isn't</i> black, but just that the pot is just as black as the kettle (ie, whoever is accusing someone of something is just as guilty as the accused). However, since I leveled my accusation against "most groups with a stake in the matter", rather than just the APA, that phrase doesn't really hurt my case any.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-APA website+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (APA website)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Who We Are Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 150,000 members... I'd say thats quite a bit more impressive then anything NARTH has. Not to mention they federal government agrees with their decisions concerning diseases of the mind. Yeah... so biased.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Simply being large does not make an organization unbiased. The catholic church has over a billion members, and is highly respected by most world governments...yet I'd guess you wouldn't hesitate to call them biased if they weighed in on this matter (which they probably have).
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even the national geographic agrees that some animals exhibit homosexual behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't even started on the debate over where animals fit into this, but I'm not contesting the research that some animals exhibit homosexual behavior. I might contest how relevant that is, but thats for later.
@Pepe:I didn't just search dictionary.com, I also attempted to look it up on merriam-webster online as well.
There is no definition for nouthetic. How about you actually tell me what it means then, for it is used as an adjective, yet no dictionary says its an actual word. (It isn't a real word. At least not in english, they are attempting to take a bibical term used only sparingly and make it sound "important.")
<!--QuoteBegin-nouthetic.org+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (nouthetic.org)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b> *While the name is new <i> (Not defined by any modern dictionary) </i> , the sort of counseling done by nouthetic counselors is not. From Biblical times onward, God's people have counseled nouthetically. The word itself is Biblical. It comes from the Greek noun nouthesia (verb: noutheteo). The word, used in the New Testament primarily by the apostle Paul, is translated "admonish, correct or instruct." </b> This term, which probably best describes Biblical counseling, occurs in such passages as Romans 15:14: "I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and competent to counsel one another." In that passage, the apostle was encouraging members of the Roman church to do informal, mutual counseling, something that all Christians today should learn, as well. On the other hand, the leaders of a congregation are to counsel nouthetically in a formal manner as a part of their ministry: "Now we ask you, brothers, to recognize those who labor among you, and manage you in the Lord, and counsel you." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-http://freedomministries.com/counselingoutreach.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://freedomministries.com/counselingoutreach.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>The word nouthetic comes from the New Testament Greek word nouthesia which means to admonish, warn, exhort. </b> This to say that Godly counsel comes in different forms. It can come in the form of exhortation (building up) or admonishment (warning). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *Not to mention the complete lack of actual linguistic evidence to support their claims. In addition, they use it as an adjective, and in greek it is a noun/verb. Not even the various people who use that word are sure of what it means in english. Which is typical of bibical translations, as has been shown before.
In addition, using a biblical perspective on something that fundamentally goes against biblical teachings is a waste of time. There is nothing orginal with what you introduced for an opinion, the many homosexuality threads on here are very clear evidence of that.
As is taught by these passages. (most of which have nothing to do with homosexuality but that is neither here nor there) Genesis 19:4-11, Leviticus 18:22/20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9, & I Timothy 1:10
So yes, all you had to mention was that he was a bibilcal counselor and we can surmise exactly what he thinks of bisexuality and homosexuality. That does not add to this discussion at all.
I see Cxwf lurking down there.. I'm sure I will have to edit to incorporate his response as well. :-)
*edit* Yup as expected. Ok. @Cxwf: Giving when you cite something in a bibilography you are calling it reference, thus he is using himself as a refernce. You should know the basics of how a research paper works.
I am not mixing up my metaphors, you and I are from different parts of the world, thusly what I was taught when I was younger, might not pertain exactly to what you were taught the words are.
All of those psychologists are respected in their field of study. Can you say the same for those who belong to NARTH? Also the christian church has over a billion members, not the catholic. They are just a seperate sect that counts everyone as catholic if they want to be or not. (Read Lutherans, Protestant, and etc.)
That last one wasn't for you, it was actually for DarkAti, since he did mention it was "unnatural." Considering we are animals, just more advanced in technology, but have, I believe, to be 95-98% same genes those bonobos do. I might be off by 1 or 2 percent. That is pretty relevant.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 4 2005, 07:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 4 2005, 07:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @Cxwf: Giving when you cite something in a bibilography you are calling it reference, thus he is using himself as a refernce. You should know the basics of how a research paper works. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Gah...almost finished replying and the reply was eaten. Have to start over now...
Yes, I know the basis of how a research paper works. And I know that the standard research paper has only a single category called "references" which contains all outside works mentioned anywhere in the paper. That does not mean that the word "reference" accurately describes all of the works in there. (Not the only possible label for the category, but it is extremely rare to see two different categories in one work). In fact, the first item on the list is described quite badly by "reference". The word "link" would be much more appropriate...except that it is a much less professional sounding word derived from the internet. But he is not citing himself, he is linking to himself, which is completely different.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not mixing up my metaphors, you and I are from different parts of the world, thusly what I was taught when I was younger, might not pertain exactly to what you were taught the words are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted, and I apologize for making assumptions about what you meant. However, whatever you <i>meant</i> to say, what you actually said in English was, "Calling the APA biased is like calling a black thing black". Would you like to revise that?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All of those psychologists are respected in their field of study. Can you say the same for those who belong to NARTH? Also the christian church has over a billion members, not the catholic. They are just a seperate sect that counts everyone as catholic if they want to be or not. (Read Lutherans, Protestant, and etc.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe you can say the same thing for those in NARTH. I've never met any of them, so I wouldn't know. And I'd hazard a guess that you haven't either. And while I disagree with your statements about the catholic church, they're beside the point. Its not whether the Catholic church has 1 Billion or 0.9 Billion or 0.5 Billion, its that they have enough to be a large and powerful organization, and yet you would still consider them to have a bias. Therefore, being large and powerful does not equate to being unbiased, as you seemed to imply when talking about the APAs size and status.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That last one wasn't for you, it was actually for DarkAti, since he did mention it was "unnatural." Considering we are animals, just more advanced in technology, but have I believe to be 95-98% same genes those bonobos do. I might be off by 1 or 2 percent. That is pretty relevant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My favorite genetic statistic is this one. We share about 67% of our DNA with red yeast mold. After discovering that, I lost all respect for genetic statistics of "x% similarity with such-and-such species", because obviously the majority of those genes are necessary simply for proper functioning at a cellular level. Relatively few genes are left over for macroscopic items like organs, brain wiring, and so on, and so a difference in just a few of those can be a much more significant change than would seem to be indicated by the "98% same DNA" or whichever statistic.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gah...almost finished replying and the reply was eaten. Have to start over now... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Completely off topic, but I hate it when the boards do that to me as well.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, I know the basis of how a research paper works. And I know that the standard research paper has only a single category called "references" which contains all outside works mentioned anywhere in the paper. That does not mean that the word "reference" accurately describes all of the works in there. (Not the only possible label for the category, but it is extremely rare to see two different categories in one work). In fact, the first item on the list is described quite badly by "reference". The word "link" would be much more appropriate...except that it is a much less professional sounding word derived from the internet. But he is not citing himself, he is linking to himself, which is completely different. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A biblography is a bilography reguardless of how you call it. The functionality is the same, otherwise he should have posted an addenum that mentions his book is not used a reference, which is not there. No need to continue on that subject as it stands as it is. You and I think differently, we have established that.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Granted, and I apologize for making assumptions about what you meant. However, whatever you meant to say, what you actually said in English was, "Calling the APA biased is like calling a black thing black". Would you like to revise that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I don't want to revise that, because what you said is what I meant. I simply have a different way of saying it. Being that english isn't my first language, sometimes I confuse it with my native one. (They do not translate well into each other.) Mistake on my part.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My favorite genetic statistic is this one. We share about 67% of our DNA with red yeast mold. After discovering that, I lost all respect for genetic statistics of "x% similarity with such-and-such species", because obviously the majority of those genes are necessary simply for proper functioning at a cellular level. Relatively few genes are left over for macroscopic items like organs, brain wiring, and so on, and so a difference in just a few of those can be a much more significant change than would seem to be indicated by the "98% same DNA" or whichever statistic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps you lost faith in it, but I found it more fascinating and enjoyed learning more about it. Just because there is a high precentage basic genetic information needed for life, doesn't make it any less relevant. The higher the precentage of simialarites the more one can realize they are not completely unique, rather we have basic evoluntionary traits that have caused us to become what we are today. I think we might have to agree to disagree on that one as well. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Wow, look! I get to reply to Cyndane without arguing with her, for possibly the very first time!!
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually I don't want to revise that, because what you said is what I meant. I simply have a different way of saying it. Being that english isn't my first language, sometimes I confuse it with my native one. (They do not translate well into each other.) Mistake on my part.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now I see what happened. I actually understood you correctly the first time (meaning you did say it correctly, just in an uncommon way), but because you were saying something totally different than what I <i>expected</i> you to say, I assumed you must have misspoken. Funny how that works, huh?
Oh and just out of curiosity, what is your native language?
I won't drag the thread more off topic, but I shall send you a PM with what you requested for information.
This isn't the first time that what I have said was interpeted in the same way as I meant it, but with different words. Even I do make mistakes (When spelling) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
People's Sexual preference is of their own concern ,while I would suggest a certain level of respect for everyone. just don't let Homosexual Couples adobt children, They understand that not having kids is apart of not being heterosexual realtionship, and they should be ok with that.
<!--QuoteBegin-Comrad Skulk+May 4 2005, 08:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Comrad Skulk @ May 4 2005, 08:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> just don't let Homosexual Couples adobt children, <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> For that ignorant statement alone, I shall ignore you like I do some others.
<!--QuoteBegin-Comrad Skulk+May 4 2005, 09:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Comrad Skulk @ May 4 2005, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People's Sexual preference is of their own concern ,while I would suggest a certain level of respect for everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->just don't let Homosexual Couples adobt children,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They understand that not having kids is apart of not being heterosexual realtionship, and they should be ok with that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not like they made a choice to be homosexual.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not like they made a choice to be homosexual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they did. And I proved it. Go back and read.
Homosexuality is a choice. This doesn't mean it's a conscious choice, it could very well be subconscious but either way, this person has made a choice on some level, to be homosexual.
OR Rare Option B is: they have been warped by their surroundings like chicken man or that boy that acted like a dog or wolf or whatever. But these are isolated instances in my opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 4 2005, 09:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 4 2005, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not like they made a choice to be homosexual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they did. And I proved it. Go back and read.
Homosexuality is a choice. This doesn't mean it's a conscious choice, it could very well be subconscious but either way, this person has made a choice on some level, to be homosexual.
OR Rare Option B is: they have been warped by their surroundings like chicken man or that boy that acted like a dog or wolf or whatever. But these are isolated instances in my opinion.
~ DarkATi<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You didn't prove that homosexuailty is a choice. You said that you have known people who say that they've changed their sexual orientation. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy' target='_blank'>Wikipedia</a> indicates that sexual orientation cannot be changed. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Reparative therapy itself is a highly contentious and controversial topic, and the claims of the ex-**** movement are hotly contested, particularly by various professional medical bodies (see Opponents). <b>The general scientific consensus has been that sexual orientation is unchangeable in adults</b>, though this consensus and the cause for that immutability are disputed by reparative therapy advocates.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless Wikipedia is mistaken, there aren't any large, mainstream, reputable scientific or medical organisations that agree with you, while there are several that disagree with you. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Proponents</i>
Various religious and ex-**** organizations, including PFOX, Exodus International, NARTH and the International Healing Foundation, as well as various minor ex-**** and transformational ministries advocate the belief that reparative therapy is genuine and works.
Conversion therapies are also advocated by various religious family values groups such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family.
Specific proponents, such as Charles Socarides, often have **** sons, leading some to suspect they are working out their own psychological issues in public through their advocacy of a therapy that doesn't work. [edit]
<i>Opponents</i>
Reparative therapies are opposed by a variety of groups, including **** rights organizations such as GLAAD, Stonewall and Outrage.
<b>More importantly, many various professional medical and psychological bodies condemn conversion therapies. Such bodies include:
* American Psychiatric Association (APA) * American Academy of Pediatrics * American Medical Association * American Psychological Association * American Counseling Association * American Federation of Teachers * National Association of School Psychologists * National Association of Social Workers * National Association of Secondary School Principals * National Education Association * Royal College of Nursing.
On the question of whether therapy can change sexual orientation the APA answers:
"No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." [4] (http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#cantherapychange)</b>
Some religious organisations also oppose reparative therapies, including The Interfaith Alliance, New Ways Ministries and People for the American Way.
<b>The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association have developed and endorsed a statement in 1999 reading:
* The most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion' therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.' ...health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I trust this more than I trust your anecdotal (and possibly mistaken) evidence.
Also, if a choice isn't conscious, then is it really a choice? I don't think it is.
@<b>Comrad Skulk</b>: You've made several statements that you haven't backed up in any way. For example, why do you think abortion will go up if homosexuals are allowed to adopt children? Also, it's not like the adopted kids would have gone into the homes of stable heterosexual couples if they hadn't been adopted by homosexuals. Most likely, they'll stay in some sort of orphanage and/or third world country.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 4 2005, 09:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 4 2005, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not like they made a choice to be homosexual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they did. And I proved it. Go back and read. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Haha, sure you did; please inform numerous psychologists on the matter and collect your Nobel prize then.
Incidently, theclam, I really wouldn't use wikipedia as a source as they are only somewhat correct on the matter. The general scientific consensus on homosexuality is that somewhere along the line host genetics may play a large role in the determination of sexual identity. They believe that this may result around puberty in 'confusing' gender sexuality and hence degrading attraction to the opposite sex. If this is completely deterministic, essentially unalterable simply due to a persons nature is not agreed upon, but generally psychologists have found that sexuality in adults is pretty much set (with exceptions) and as a <i>result</i> do not think that 'treatments' to reverse sexuality is a good idea. (Ie does more harm than good).
The language used in the wikipedia article, is thus not entirely representative.
Everyone wants homosexuality to be this thing that no one can change or touch. But modern science has proven that genetics don't force us into any sexual orientation. Therefore, it must be a psychological issue.
So let's get down to the psychological argument here.
Again, from NARTH but it's a good read. It doesn't set anything in stone but through personal experience and studies like the twins, I can safely say that homosexuality is not unstoppable.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I sure did. Go and read the twin study.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The twin studies only prove that genetics isn't the sole factor in determining homosexuality. You seem to be going along this logical path: <i>It's not genetic, therefore it must be psychological, therefore it must be a choice.</i> I'll refer you to my previous comment about this: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, if a choice isn't conscious, then is it really a choice? I don't think it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because it is psychological doesn't mean that it's a choice, anymore than depression is a choice. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer3.html<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've been reading more about Spitzer. <a href='http://users.psychoanalysis.net/From%20Journal%20Editors/S0060FCD2-0060FDA2?WasRead=1' target='_blank'>http://users.psychoanalysis.net/From%20Jou...0FDA2?WasRead=1</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Spitzer said that being able to change is “probably quite rare, even for highly motivated homosexuals” and that it would be a serious mistake to conclude from his study that any highly motivated homosexual can change his or her sexual orientation or that his study shows that homosexuality is a “choice.”<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here's an article about him and the letter in which he wrote those statements. <a href='http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/24/11' target='_blank'>http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/24/11</a>
Even among highly motivated individuals it's probably rare for them to be able to change their sexual orientation? This casts a great deal of doubt on that NARTH article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can safely say that homosexuality is not unstoppable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You say that like homosexuality is this organised, concerted force bent on taking over the world. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We even call it the homosexual lifestyle.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> By "We" you mean the Religious Right, right? I've never heard that phrased used by anyone who is not on that side of the debate. I don't think there is any homosexual lifestyle. The only constant among homosexuals is that they are sexually attracted to people of their own sex, rather than people of the opposite sex. Apart from that, they are as varied as heterosexuals are.
It is the interaction between the environment and the creature that produces the resulting circumstances. Genes are the blueprint for that creature.
Here I must go OT because I am compelled by my sleep deprivation. In a way the question of genetics vs environment resembles the question in history (as far as I know, I am no history major and do not care to follow the latest political developments in the field) of Great Man vs trends.
In this case Great Man is always the cause of everything. Trends result from the interaction between people. Each and every person makes decisions that shape the future. Each and every person is an Actor upon the present reality, each and every person is a Creator of the future. Each and every person is a Man, or let us say, Person. It just happens that the Great ones are particularly remembered.
Trends do not exist independent of the people.
WOW my articulation has completely failed beyond this point. Suffice to say that the creature does not exist independent of its genetic code. Environments can come and go but the genetic code is the creature. Without the genes and hence the creature, with all its properties and tendencies, there is no lifestory that unfolds.. the lifestory is not independent of the genetic code
I apologize if I am no Magic Lantern forcibly burning the brilliance of truth onto innocent minds. My mind is pretty tired and it is facile only to force out statements of which the truth is already known. To plan how to explain them well is beyond my abilities at the moment.
Let's have a go at it: People do not exist in a bubble. Trends are always acting upon them. The nature of the interaction depends upon the properties of the individual in question and the trend in question.
It is up to the actions of the individual that will shape the future.
Trends source ultimately from the people. From the individuals. No matter how complex and large scale, all of it results from the interaction of the people with their environment.
Without the person, there is no action. Without the specific person, there is not that specific action. Without the people, there is no trend. It is inherent in the nature of human existence; again no person exists in a bubble. It is meaningless to separate the idea of trends out as some kind of magical force.
Similarly with genetics. Genetics makes the person. I do not know how much randomness there is in the universe so I will leave off extending the tyranny of determinism. When the genes change, the person template changes. The interaction between the genes and the environment continually produce an everchanging person. Amazingly, or deliriously, I have suddenly found this awesome way to visualize it.
The genes are the instructions, and the living system produced interacts with its environment. On the surface, this seems a mundane statement. I think I will have to leave off here cuz I am about to pass out and really, if people do not understand, it will take some special nuance better left to alertness
I'd have to say that up to this point in my life I'm 100% straight. Drunk or sober I have never thought about another man sexually. It used to be what I learned when I grew up, homosexuals could all have burned and they were all evil. However when I got older and out away from family (parents) and actually met and hung around various homosexuals (male and female). I got the current attitude that people are people, and whatever floats your boat, just don't come jumping into mine. I still have no desire or curiousity in me abou it. Dunno maybe if guys had boobs and hips it'd be a different story.
So while I agree that the extremes are rare they are there.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 4 2005, 11:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 4 2005, 11:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I sure did. Go and read the twin study. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No you didn't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everyone wants homosexuality to be this thing that no one can change or touch. But modern science has proven that genetics don't force us into any sexual orientation. Therefore, it must be a psychological issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, nothing in science confirms this idea and unless you are familiar with the current research don't talk complete nonsense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So let's get down to the psychological argument here.
Again, from NARTH but it's a good read. It doesn't set anything in stone but through personal experience and studies like the twins, I can safely say that homosexuality is not unstoppable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am aware of Spitzers work, I'm also aware he has been torn a new one in the literature as well for many reasons.
Firstly, Spitzers work has been demonstrated to be flawed, such as his 2003 paper, <i>Can some **** men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation.</i>:
1) He found that individuals who had 'homosexual' behaviours taken from organisations that were predominantly anti-**** or were from other backgrounds (including being married) he found were able to be 'treated'.
2) Of his group, only 20 were actually homosexual (had never reported feelings for the opposite sex). As his study was conducted over the phone, and not in person plus no follow up after a year was conducted, this makes some of his claims suspect.
3) He has actually denied that wide spread theraputic 'treatment' would in fact be useful on a large amount of homosexuals, this has been quoted above.
With such a waffly, poorly designed study it is no wonder he found something.
Other views on his 'findings' can be found here, with the general trend being that the study is nowhere near conclusive and has numerous flaws.
Of course, lets not forget Spitzer himself admits:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Spitzer explained that while his study results run counter "to the current view of most mental health professionals," who maintain that homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation, his report was "<b>based on a very unique sample.</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Secondly, another study, published by Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder. Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers' Report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 249-259 (2002); of 202 homosexuals 176 perceived themselves as having "failed conversion therapy" and 26 as having been successful. Notably however, only 8 of those 26 had made a 'full' conversion to heterosexuality, indicating that in a massive majority of cases therapy had completely failed.
Now what I demonstrate with this, is that Spitzers results seem questionable given the other studies published largely corroborating these low numbers. However, I note that homosexual behaviour can still possibly be altered in a low number of individuals, as has already ALSO been observed. Again, this is because factors such as genetics are not always going to be 100% hits, genetics can have a wide variation of effects on the final phenotype.
This is because, as you are trying to deliberately obsfuscate with NARTH and the like, is that the psychological society doesn't disagree therapy can work for that reason. Some people will respond to therapy (Shock horror!). What they <i>do</i> disagree with is that therapy works in a LARGE amount of cases and disturbingly, as work by Shidlo and Schroeder demonstrate, attempts to put homosexuals into therapy actually can <b>cause harm in many patients and lead to other side effects, such as depression</b>. As a result, this is why they do <b>not</b> <b>recommend</b> the treatment of homosexuals.
Again:
1) Studies indicating homosexual behaviour can be readily changed have been demonstrated to have significant flaws.
2) Studies have indicated that some homosexuals <i>may</i> have their behaviour altered.
3) Even though (2) appears to corroborate (1) it doesn't, because it is only a low minority and significant reports of where it goes wrong has lead to other conditions, including clinical depression.
4) This would be expected because genetics plays a variety of parts in determining phenotype, with some genotypes producing more extreme phenotypes than others (I am about to establish this below).
Thirdly:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In all species, sexual behavior is directed by a complex interplay between steroid hormone actions in the brain that give rise to sexual arousability and experience with sexual reward that gives rise to expectations of competent sexual activity, including sexual arousal, desire, and performance. Sexual experience allows animals to form instrumental and Pavlovian associations that predict sexual outcome and thereby directs the strength of sexual responding. Although the study of animal sexual behavior by neuroendocrinologists has traditionally been concerned with mechanisms of copulatory responding, more recent use of conditioning and preference paradigms, and a focus on environmental circumstances and experience, has revealed behaviors and processes that resemble human sexual responses. In this paper, we review behavioral paradigms used with rodents and other species that are analogous or homologous to human sexual arousal, desire, reward, and inhibition. The extent to which these behavioral paradigms offer predictive validity and practicality as preclinical tools and models is discussed. <b>Identification of common neurochemical and neuroanatomical substrates of sexual responding between animals and humans suggests that the evolution of sexual behavior has been highly conserved and indicates that animal models of human sexual response can be used successfully as preclinical tools</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pfaus JG, Kippin TE, Coria-Avila G. What can animal models tell us about human sexual response? Annual review of sex research. 2003;14:1-63.
This review indicates that it is reasonable to examine animal and human sexual responses and to justify my use of later reviews and such forth. This is not directly related.
This review however is (hence the above review):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Male sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior are thought, on the basis of experiments in rodents, to be caused by androgens, following conversion to estrogens. However, <b>observations in human subjects with genetic and other disorders show that direct effects of testosterone on the developing fetal brain are of major importance for the development of male gender identity and male heterosexual orientation[b]. [b]<i>Solid evidence for the importance of postnatal social factors is lacking</b></i>. In the human brain, <b>structural diferences have been described that seem to be related to gender identity and sexual orientation</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Swaab D.F. Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. <i>Gynecological endocrinology : the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology.</i> 2004 Dec;19(6):301-12.
This review, demonstrates very clearly that sexual behaviour is highly regulated by developmental biology and that social implications may be nowhere as conclusive as certain genetic factors. Testosterone levels and responses are particularly noted as having a notable effect on both animal models and are correlated with humans with similar genetic disorders.
Aside from the fact this annihilates your argument in one fell swoop, that <i>all</i> homosexuals have a choice, because clearly genetics <i>can</i> have a significant effect. Animal models have proven this, the fact we can't do such experiments in humans doesn't change the fact that numerous genetic analyses on hormone levels like testosterone have indicated alterations in sexual behaviour in humans.
<i>This indicates that homosexuality and other sexual related affairs may have a genetic component that can be more important than social outcomes</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We even call it the homosexual lifestyle.
And lifestyles can change. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not correct in all cases, such ridiculous blanket all or nothing statements are utterly devoid of reality and how things ultimately work. In the same way that someone who claims that ALL homosexuals are utterly, completely and absolutely that way and can't change is wrong, so too is the opposite statement you are making.
Also, just for amusement
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 1901 Dorland Medical Dictionary defines heterosexuality as "Abnormal or perverted appetite towards the opposite sex."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ethics and social policy in research on the neuroscience of human sexuality. Nature Neuroscience. Volume 7,2004.
<b>Introduction. </b> (You can skip this part) Okay, I don't normally venture into discussions so bare with me here. I shall start with a short, somewhat off-topic story of my trials. As normal, I logged on to the NS forums and went straight to the bottom with full intent of checking the off-topic forums. That, is when I saw this thread. So I'm thinking to myself "Hmm, Bisexuality. That is a topic in which I have opinions I wish to discuss and somehow effects my everyday life. Maybe I should check it out" "But wait! Don't the discussion forums have special rules in which to abide by? I should probably check those out, for while I don't generally venture there, they can be of interest once in a while. I would so hate to be restricted from them." So, I read through the rules, remembering to note rule #6 which states 6.: Read through the other posts. I think to myself "All right, not too hard, its only 6 pages" Those are words that I shall never think again. To say the least, it took a very long time to read everything. There are posts in here that contain more words in that single post than most of the 6 page topics in the "off-topic" forum. But now, I can post. Hopefully. I think I may have forgotten something along the way. May nem0 have mercy upon my forum viewing privileges.
Unfortunately, being that there was so much to read, and ever so much to respond to, I have found it quite overwhelming to respond to all of it, or even a small portion. Instead, I shall state my ideas on bisexuality and well, hopefully won't derail too far and will not anger the mods or discussion regs too much for my somewhat blatent disregard for the rest of the thread, though I managed to read through all of it.
<b>Actual post!</b> (Wherein I state my opinions in hopes of someone reading)
Bisexuality is possibly the most vague word to have a somewhat definite meaning (that a person like boys and girls) There are many different ways in which to rank bisexuality, and while some can cover it fairly well, for example The "Sphere" someone mentioned earlier, can't remember who it was, the thread was a fair read.. and others can make a general ball park figure (the Kinsley scale) I do not believe either scaling method is accurate, nor is it possible for one to be made.
Of course, my understanding of human emotions is that you simply can't understand them, thus I believe you can't chart or graph them. This may be why I stopped to a certain therapist I had, because he kept trying to give me kinsley-esque ballpark figures for really deep emotional issues in my life, something that went against my beliefs.
I do not believe in the "[Almost] Everyone is [somewhat] bisexual" theory. This goes back to my lack of beliefs that you can't chart something like that. Such a vague term is fairly all-encompassing. To like both genders is assumed. I know there are people who downright hate one gender or another, but for the most part they play off stereotypes and irrational fears and phobias. I do not include these people in my assumptions, as I do not believe it is possible to downright loath 50% of your own species. Now, from a simple "I like <person>", wether as a friend or a possible sexual partner, I believe any relationship, assuming the two people are of compatible personalities, can escalate to such a point where lines become blurred. Most of course don't get to this point. One or both sides of the relationship will actively set down a line in which they believe it would not be right for things to escalate beyond. From that point onward they will consciously make sure things do not continue on that path. Now, why did they put down that line? Most likely, a feeling, a feeling that like all feelings is a great amalgamation of many different ideas. There will often be a fairly dominant idea, "I do not want a relationship of that sort with <person> because they are <gender>" But I do not believe it can be said that it is infact the driving force behind the decision. Another idea in the feeling could easily be "I am not <sexual orientation>. I can not be <sexual orientation> and I refuse to ever be <sexual orientation> because I am <other sexual orientation>" Of course, both ideas state the same thing, right? But the first one is a decision, and structured like a statement. The second is somewhat more frantic, sounding much like denial. I would assume the first to be more dominant in the feeling simply because it is harder to question it. If someone asks about a feeling a person has, they generally have to sum it up as best as possible. In a situation such as a relationship you most likely do not want to say something they may question right off the bat. The same goes with how a person might explain the feeling to themselves.
Both ideas can be present in the feeling, neither need to be the driving force.
Now, looking back I understand that I just stated, very thoroughly that I believe if you remove irrational boundaries, everyone can be Bi. If everyone on some level is infact bisexual, then what must you need to be classed as a bisexual person? Wouldn't we all just be people? Would there be any need for classification? Not really, but people seem to like it that way. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> What classifies a person as a sexual orientation is simply their choice to voice what they believe they should be classified as.
There are Heterosexual people, there are bisexual people and there are homosexual people.
<b>But</b>, it doesn't stop there. Possibly because I did the stupid thing of applying an example of emotions to something generally regarded as a more physical matter.
To rectify my mistake, I shall make another one, as not to set things straight but more properly crooked.
I believe Physical attraction is a much less complex thing compared to feelings. I also believe you would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks otherwise. But, I believe I could be wrong in both cases.
Person A is able to have an emotional relationship with people of either gender, but feels little to no sexual attraction to either. While walking down the street with some friends, friend A might point out a very attractive young woman (Person B) to Person A. Person A did not spot Person C, their eyes simply did not draw to Person B. As such, Person A responds with an un-enthusiastic "Oh, yeah.. sure" Later, Friend B points out an attractive young man (Person C) to Person A. Person A once again failed to notice. Again, responding in a somewhat un-enthusiastic "Yeah.. if you say so"
Person A constantly finds himself in these situations.
On the other hand, Person A has been in relationships with people of the opposite gender. In these situations, Person A did take part in certain sexual acts. Not for their own enjoyment, but to please the other person, and because "its only natural" This is not to say Person A didn't enjoy these acts, but not for the normal reasons. Physically, they enjoyed the simulation, but found it somewhat awkward. They found more enjoyment simply in being able to please the person they cared about.
Currently though, person A has become involved in a relationship with someone of the same gender. Emotionally they find themselves more drawn to this person than anyone they previously met, but find the idea of sexual relations with them more awkward than with those of the other gender, and have informed their partner of such, without conflict.
So then, what is Person A? Straight? Not likely, since they are in a relationship with someone of their gender. Ga.y? Well, they have had sexual relations with someone of the opposite gender and feel uncomfortable with sexual relations with people of the same gender. Bisexual? They feel awkward in sexual situations with either gender. Definite no.
They can't claim to be any of these classifications and thus are not any.
So, in conclusion, On one level, everyone is bisexual. On another, no one is. But on the most common level, all you have to do is feel you are and say so. Not everyone is bi, not everyone is straight and not everyone is ****. Not everyone feels they fit those classifications, not everyone can say they do.
oh, and humans are crazy. I'd much rather live as a whale, spawned in space by an improbability drive only to crash down upon a planet which no one thought to exist outside of legends.
--------------
And that, is my first real step into the discussions forum. Hope I didn't confuse too many people and completely contradict myself too many times..
I guess everyone's just going to ignore <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92787&view=findpost&p=1467556' target='_blank'>my post</a> then. I'm cool with that. I'll just go away then. I didn't expect anybody to be able to answer my questions or refute my points anyway.
Comments
Other then that one reference all the rest check out just fine, a couple come up biased, but that is to be expected you can't get all the information from just one side of the fence you have to use both, and he does.
I still can't find the page where he has the 38% statistic or where he picked it up from.
The conclusions at the end are also opinion(No source would make those assumptions if it didn't have an agenda, another point docked from credibility) and not supported by any statistics. Although it is presented in a factual sense.
Pepe: I disagree with the view because it views it as a "mental disease" which it is not. As evidenced by the 1970's(35 yrs ago we KNEW it wasn't(and isn't) a mental disease. Its sad some people can't actually understand that.) study from the APA, which the federal government, takes it advice from.
~ DarkATi
Now, that isn't limited to the persons own personal sin... it is also the affect of sin on that persons life (abusive person x or negligent parent y).
Of course, being a nouthetic counselor - he approaches most problems in that fashion... and it isn't limited to homosexuality. Hetrosexual relationships can have just as sinful elements to them as homosexual...
So in response to people who might ask "why pick on homosexuality" - I try not to. It is an easier target because the sin is more visable than its hetrosexual counterparts - and the hetrosexual counterparts are more accepted in society.
Now, my opinion then - is everyone at least mildly bi-sexual? Yes - in that everone struggles with sin. Weather it be alcoholism, or fantisizing about guys - everyone sins. To find a study that says everyone falls in a continum isn't that earth shattering for me. Rather, it points out that everyone addresses that sin in their lives - and gives a gradient to how much that particular failing is affecting a particular person.
If I were to be honest and rate myself - I would put myself in the mildy currous position. I am happily married, and left to my own devices I would probably act on said curriosity. However, in saying this - I recognize the sin in myself for what it is - and with that recognition comes the responsibility to deal with it in an apropriate manner... to be consistant to my vows to my wife and love her until death do us part.
Any questions?
And before you say anything, it's nature, not nuture. Period.
Edit: Well, not ALL men. I can admire a guy who is strong, or looks good, but the only time sexuality enters into it is when I think "Wow, he must get a lot of chicks." Thinking about them in any other way is nauseating for me...
Oh yea, don't get me wrong though. I have no problem with homos and bis, but I'm not one myself and it really annoys me when people think that I am, even 0.1%. Then I deny it and they blame it on culture and such. These people - that I know in real life - need to accept the fact that there is still such as thing as a straight man.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
On both sides of the issues, hence we're all a little bisexual. You answered the topic question. Good!
nomothetic
1. Of or relating to lawmaking; legislative.
2. Based on a system of law.
3. Of or relating to the philosophy of law.
4. Of or relating to the study or discovery of general scientific laws
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
@Pepe: I think you mean nomothetic counselor, which if he is.. that is an oxymoron. I can not think of a single government that would allow a pastor to be a nomothetic counselor, unless it is a really small town and they don't recongize seperation of church and state.
Do not bring any form of religion into this thread it was doing so well and then you had to go and degrade everything from there. There was absolutely no mention of this to be debated morally. (Which is what all religions do)
Not to mention bringing in an opinion from a pastor, that is almost as bad as your comment at the end of your Terry Schavio post. I'm dissappointed.
@DarkAti: If it was changable why would every single homosexual disagree with you(That wasn't pressured into changing themselves by society or peers), personally I prefer to take someones advice on it who is actually homosexual, rather then some heterosexual who thinks he knows everything. (NARTH, for example.)
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Edit: Well, not ALL men. I can admire a guy who is strong, or looks good, but the only time sexuality enters into it is when I think "Wow, he must get a lot of chicks." Thinking about them in any other way is nauseating for me...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
@TommyVercetti Exactly the kind of narrowminedness we are trying to get away from. Personally I find your view more disgusting then hetro/homo sexuals making out in public. You were taught it was "bad", which is why you think it is "nauseating".
@Tanathos: Yes, that would be correct, problem is one side is already thinking for both sides and I'll let you make your mind which one it is.
Hey - I offered a valid argument and a perspective that hadn't been mentioned in the thread - and suddenly I'm degrading it? Some peoples prejudice knows no bounds...
Also - he is not nomothetic - he is nouthetic.
<a href='http://www.nanc.org' target='_blank'>Just because Dictionary </a>dot com fails you doesn't mean I don't know how to spell
Did you look at the <i>context</i> in which he quotes himself? He's not throwing some "fact" out there, and supporting it merely with his own word. Rather, he starts the article by saying, "there are studies of identical twins and non-identical twins, and this article will focus on the identical twins, but I have also written about non-identical twin studies and if you care you can look that up in this other thing I wrote". That doesn't actually count as using himself as a reference, and does nothing to hurt his credibility. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using himself as any sort of a reference even just to promote is own book is indeed hurting credibility. You must have not done many papers that required research.
If you were to turn do a paper on say sunblock for your senior year in highschool, and enjoyed it enought to re-do a paper in college the professor would laugh at you if you cited yourself as a reference. Same applies here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're missing the point. Its not a reference at all, because he isn't drawing any info from it for use in this paper. It's only point for being there is to make you aware that it exists, so you can go find it. So its self-publicity, and if you have a problem with self-publicity, then fine. But he's not using himself as a reference.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Athena+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Athena)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I'm going to say is that you're quoting NARTH. The "National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality." The name of the organization should already give you an indication of how biased of a site you're reading.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, their <i>opinions</i> are most likely biased...although you can make the same accusation against most other groups with a stake in the matter, including the APA. However, that doesn't autmatically invalidate their scientific studies, which still have plenty of credibility. And the studies are referenced and cited in that article, so you can see exactly where they got their data from.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Calling the APA biased is calling the cauldron black.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um...you are aware cauldrons <i>are</i> black right? I think you're mixing your metaphors. You're probably looking for the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black", which isn't a way of saying that the kettle <i>isn't</i> black, but just that the pot is just as black as the kettle (ie, whoever is accusing someone of something is just as guilty as the accused). However, since I leveled my accusation against "most groups with a stake in the matter", rather than just the APA, that phrase doesn't really hurt my case any.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-APA website+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (APA website)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Who We Are
Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
150,000 members... I'd say thats quite a bit more impressive then anything NARTH has. Not to mention they federal government agrees with their decisions concerning diseases of the mind. Yeah... so biased.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simply being large does not make an organization unbiased. The catholic church has over a billion members, and is highly respected by most world governments...yet I'd guess you wouldn't hesitate to call them biased if they weighed in on this matter (which they probably have).
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even the national geographic agrees that some animals exhibit homosexual behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't even started on the debate over where animals fit into this, but I'm not contesting the research that some animals exhibit homosexual behavior. I might contest how relevant that is, but thats for later.
There is no definition for nouthetic. How about you actually tell me what it means then, for it is used as an adjective, yet no dictionary says its an actual word. (It isn't a real word. At least not in english, they are attempting to take a bibical term used only sparingly and make it sound "important.")
<!--QuoteBegin-nouthetic.org+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (nouthetic.org)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b> *While the name is new <i> (Not defined by any modern dictionary) </i> , the sort of counseling done by nouthetic counselors is not. From Biblical times onward, God's people have counseled nouthetically. The word itself is Biblical. It comes from the Greek noun nouthesia (verb: noutheteo). The word, used in the New Testament primarily by the apostle Paul, is translated "admonish, correct or instruct." </b> This term, which probably best describes Biblical counseling, occurs in such passages as Romans 15:14: "I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and competent to counsel one another." In that passage, the apostle was encouraging members of the Roman church to do informal, mutual counseling, something that all Christians today should learn, as well. On the other hand, the leaders of a congregation are to counsel nouthetically in a formal manner as a part of their ministry: "Now we ask you, brothers, to recognize those who labor among you, and manage you in the Lord, and counsel you."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-http://freedomministries.com/counselingoutreach.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://freedomministries.com/counselingoutreach.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>The word nouthetic comes from the New Testament Greek word nouthesia which means to admonish, warn, exhort. </b> This to say that Godly counsel comes in different forms. It can come in the form of exhortation (building up) or admonishment (warning).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Not to mention the complete lack of actual linguistic evidence to support their claims. In addition, they use it as an adjective, and in greek it is a noun/verb. Not even the various people who use that word are sure of what it means in english. Which is typical of bibical translations, as has been shown before.
<a href='http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Nouthetic+Counselors+&x=16&y=22' target='_blank'> Merriam Webster (Nouthetic Counselors) </a>
<a href='http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nouthetic&x=17&y=10' target='_blank'>Merriam Webster (nouthetic)</a>
In addition, using a biblical perspective on something that fundamentally goes against biblical teachings is a waste of time. There is nothing orginal with what you introduced for an opinion, the many homosexuality threads on here are very clear evidence of that.
As is taught by these passages. (most of which have nothing to do with homosexuality but that is neither here nor there)
Genesis 19:4-11, Leviticus 18:22/20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9, & I Timothy 1:10
So yes, all you had to mention was that he was a bibilcal counselor and we can surmise exactly what he thinks of bisexuality and homosexuality. That does not add to this discussion at all.
I see Cxwf lurking down there.. I'm sure I will have to edit to incorporate his response as well. :-)
*edit* Yup as expected. Ok.
@Cxwf: Giving when you cite something in a bibilography you are calling it reference, thus he is using himself as a refernce. You should know the basics of how a research paper works.
I am not mixing up my metaphors, you and I are from different parts of the world, thusly what I was taught when I was younger, might not pertain exactly to what you were taught the words are.
All of those psychologists are respected in their field of study. Can you say the same for those who belong to NARTH? Also the christian church has over a billion members, not the catholic. They are just a seperate sect that counts everyone as catholic if they want to be or not. (Read Lutherans, Protestant, and etc.)
That last one wasn't for you, it was actually for DarkAti, since he did mention it was "unnatural." Considering we are animals, just more advanced in technology, but have, I believe, to be 95-98% same genes those bonobos do. I might be off by 1 or 2 percent. That is pretty relevant.
Gah...almost finished replying and the reply was eaten. Have to start over now...
Yes, I know the basis of how a research paper works. And I know that the standard research paper has only a single category called "references" which contains all outside works mentioned anywhere in the paper. That does not mean that the word "reference" accurately describes all of the works in there. (Not the only possible label for the category, but it is extremely rare to see two different categories in one work). In fact, the first item on the list is described quite badly by "reference". The word "link" would be much more appropriate...except that it is a much less professional sounding word derived from the internet. But he is not citing himself, he is linking to himself, which is completely different.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not mixing up my metaphors, you and I are from different parts of the world, thusly what I was taught when I was younger, might not pertain exactly to what you were taught the words are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, and I apologize for making assumptions about what you meant. However, whatever you <i>meant</i> to say, what you actually said in English was, "Calling the APA biased is like calling a black thing black". Would you like to revise that?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All of those psychologists are respected in their field of study. Can you say the same for those who belong to NARTH? Also the christian church has over a billion members, not the catholic. They are just a seperate sect that counts everyone as catholic if they want to be or not. (Read Lutherans, Protestant, and etc.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you can say the same thing for those in NARTH. I've never met any of them, so I wouldn't know. And I'd hazard a guess that you haven't either. And while I disagree with your statements about the catholic church, they're beside the point. Its not whether the Catholic church has 1 Billion or 0.9 Billion or 0.5 Billion, its that they have enough to be a large and powerful organization, and yet you would still consider them to have a bias. Therefore, being large and powerful does not equate to being unbiased, as you seemed to imply when talking about the APAs size and status.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That last one wasn't for you, it was actually for DarkAti, since he did mention it was "unnatural." Considering we are animals, just more advanced in technology, but have I believe to be 95-98% same genes those bonobos do. I might be off by 1 or 2 percent. That is pretty relevant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My favorite genetic statistic is this one. We share about 67% of our DNA with red yeast mold. After discovering that, I lost all respect for genetic statistics of "x% similarity with such-and-such species", because obviously the majority of those genes are necessary simply for proper functioning at a cellular level. Relatively few genes are left over for macroscopic items like organs, brain wiring, and so on, and so a difference in just a few of those can be a much more significant change than would seem to be indicated by the "98% same DNA" or whichever statistic.
Gah...almost finished replying and the reply was eaten. Have to start over now...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Completely off topic, but I hate it when the boards do that to me as well.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Yes, I know the basis of how a research paper works. And I know that the standard research paper has only a single category called "references" which contains all outside works mentioned anywhere in the paper. That does not mean that the word "reference" accurately describes all of the works in there. (Not the only possible label for the category, but it is extremely rare to see two different categories in one work). In fact, the first item on the list is described quite badly by "reference". The word "link" would be much more appropriate...except that it is a much less professional sounding word derived from the internet. But he is not citing himself, he is linking to himself, which is completely different.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A biblography is a bilography reguardless of how you call it. The functionality is the same, otherwise he should have posted an addenum that mentions his book is not used a reference, which is not there. No need to continue on that subject as it stands as it is. You and I think differently, we have established that.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Granted, and I apologize for making assumptions about what you meant. However, whatever you meant to say, what you actually said in English was, "Calling the APA biased is like calling a black thing black". Would you like to revise that?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I don't want to revise that, because what you said is what I meant. I simply have a different way of saying it. Being that english isn't my first language, sometimes I confuse it with my native one. (They do not translate well into each other.) Mistake on my part.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
My favorite genetic statistic is this one. We share about 67% of our DNA with red yeast mold. After discovering that, I lost all respect for genetic statistics of "x% similarity with such-and-such species", because obviously the majority of those genes are necessary simply for proper functioning at a cellular level. Relatively few genes are left over for macroscopic items like organs, brain wiring, and so on, and so a difference in just a few of those can be a much more significant change than would seem to be indicated by the "98% same DNA" or whichever statistic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps you lost faith in it, but I found it more fascinating and enjoyed learning more about it. Just because there is a high precentage basic genetic information needed for life, doesn't make it any less relevant. The higher the precentage of simialarites the more one can realize they are not completely unique, rather we have basic evoluntionary traits that have caused us to become what we are today. I think we might have to agree to disagree on that one as well. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually I don't want to revise that, because what you said is what I meant. I simply have a different way of saying it. Being that english isn't my first language, sometimes I confuse it with my native one. (They do not translate well into each other.) Mistake on my part.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now I see what happened. I actually understood you correctly the first time (meaning you did say it correctly, just in an uncommon way), but because you were saying something totally different than what I <i>expected</i> you to say, I assumed you must have misspoken. Funny how that works, huh?
Oh and just out of curiosity, what is your native language?
This isn't the first time that what I have said was interpeted in the same way as I meant it, but with different words. Even I do make mistakes (When spelling) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
For that ignorant statement alone, I shall ignore you like I do some others.
I agree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->just don't let Homosexual Couples adobt children,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They understand that not having kids is apart of not being heterosexual realtionship, and they should be ok with that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not like they made a choice to be homosexual.
allowing Homosexual couples to adobt kids will do theese things
1- Abortion will go up
2- more kids will stay in poor living conditions with unprepared parents
3- less children will enter the adotion program despite maybe the fact that their parents are unable to raise them properly.
Yes they did. And I proved it. Go back and read.
Homosexuality is a choice. This doesn't mean it's a conscious choice, it could very well be subconscious but either way, this person has made a choice on some level, to be homosexual.
OR Rare Option B is: they have been warped by their surroundings like chicken man or that boy that acted like a dog or wolf or whatever. But these are isolated instances in my opinion.
~ DarkATi
Yes they did. And I proved it. Go back and read.
Homosexuality is a choice. This doesn't mean it's a conscious choice, it could very well be subconscious but either way, this person has made a choice on some level, to be homosexual.
OR Rare Option B is: they have been warped by their surroundings like chicken man or that boy that acted like a dog or wolf or whatever. But these are isolated instances in my opinion.
~ DarkATi<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You didn't prove that homosexuailty is a choice. You said that you have known people who say that they've changed their sexual orientation. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy' target='_blank'>Wikipedia</a> indicates that sexual orientation cannot be changed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Reparative therapy itself is a highly contentious and controversial topic, and the claims of the ex-**** movement are hotly contested, particularly by various professional medical bodies (see Opponents). <b>The general scientific consensus has been that sexual orientation is unchangeable in adults</b>, though this consensus and the cause for that immutability are disputed by reparative therapy advocates.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless Wikipedia is mistaken, there aren't any large, mainstream, reputable scientific or medical organisations that agree with you, while there are several that disagree with you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Proponents</i>
Various religious and ex-**** organizations, including PFOX, Exodus International, NARTH and the International Healing Foundation, as well as various minor ex-**** and transformational ministries advocate the belief that reparative therapy is genuine and works.
Conversion therapies are also advocated by various religious family values groups such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family.
Specific proponents, such as Charles Socarides, often have **** sons, leading some to suspect they are working out their own psychological issues in public through their advocacy of a therapy that doesn't work.
[edit]
<i>Opponents</i>
Reparative therapies are opposed by a variety of groups, including **** rights organizations such as GLAAD, Stonewall and Outrage.
<b>More importantly, many various professional medical and psychological bodies condemn conversion therapies. Such bodies include:
* American Psychiatric Association (APA)
* American Academy of Pediatrics
* American Medical Association
* American Psychological Association
* American Counseling Association
* American Federation of Teachers
* National Association of School Psychologists
* National Association of Social Workers
* National Association of Secondary School Principals
* National Education Association
* Royal College of Nursing.
On the question of whether therapy can change sexual orientation the APA answers:
"No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." [4] (http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#cantherapychange)</b>
Some religious organisations also oppose reparative therapies, including The Interfaith Alliance, New Ways Ministries and People for the American Way.
<b>The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association have developed and endorsed a statement in 1999 reading:
* The most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion' therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.' ...health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I trust this more than I trust your anecdotal (and possibly mistaken) evidence.
Also, if a choice isn't conscious, then is it really a choice? I don't think it is.
@<b>Comrad Skulk</b>:
You've made several statements that you haven't backed up in any way. For example, why do you think abortion will go up if homosexuals are allowed to adopt children? Also, it's not like the adopted kids would have gone into the homes of stable heterosexual couples if they hadn't been adopted by homosexuals. Most likely, they'll stay in some sort of orphanage and/or third world country.
Yes they did. And I proved it. Go back and read. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha, sure you did; please inform numerous psychologists on the matter and collect your Nobel prize then.
Incidently, theclam, I really wouldn't use wikipedia as a source as they are only somewhat correct on the matter. The general scientific consensus on homosexuality is that somewhere along the line host genetics may play a large role in the determination of sexual identity. They believe that this may result around puberty in 'confusing' gender sexuality and hence degrading attraction to the opposite sex. If this is completely deterministic, essentially unalterable simply due to a persons nature is not agreed upon, but generally psychologists have found that sexuality in adults is pretty much set (with exceptions) and as a <i>result</i> do not think that 'treatments' to reverse sexuality is a good idea. (Ie does more harm than good).
The language used in the wikipedia article, is thus not entirely representative.
Everyone wants homosexuality to be this thing that no one can change or touch. But modern science has proven that genetics don't force us into any sexual orientation. Therefore, it must be a psychological issue.
So let's get down to the psychological argument here.
<a href='http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer3.html' target='_blank'>http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer3.html</a>
Again, from NARTH but it's a good read. It doesn't set anything in stone but through personal experience and studies like the twins, I can safely say that homosexuality is not unstoppable.
We even call it the homosexual lifestyle.
And lifestyles can change.
~ DarkATi
The twin studies only prove that genetics isn't the sole factor in determining homosexuality. You seem to be going along this logical path:
<i>It's not genetic, therefore it must be psychological, therefore it must be a choice.</i>
I'll refer you to my previous comment about this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, if a choice isn't conscious, then is it really a choice? I don't think it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because it is psychological doesn't mean that it's a choice, anymore than depression is a choice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer3.html<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been reading more about Spitzer.
<a href='http://users.psychoanalysis.net/From%20Journal%20Editors/S0060FCD2-0060FDA2?WasRead=1' target='_blank'>http://users.psychoanalysis.net/From%20Jou...0FDA2?WasRead=1</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Spitzer said that being able to change is “probably quite rare, even for highly motivated homosexuals” and that it would be a serious mistake to conclude from his study that any highly motivated homosexual can change his or her sexual orientation or that his study shows that homosexuality is a “choice.”<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's an article about him and the letter in which he wrote those statements.
<a href='http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/24/11' target='_blank'>http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/24/11</a>
Even among highly motivated individuals it's probably rare for them to be able to change their sexual orientation? This casts a great deal of doubt on that NARTH article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can safely say that homosexuality is not unstoppable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You say that like homosexuality is this organised, concerted force bent on taking over the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We even call it the homosexual lifestyle.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By "We" you mean the Religious Right, right? I've never heard that phrased used by anyone who is not on that side of the debate. I don't think there is any homosexual lifestyle. The only constant among homosexuals is that they are sexually attracted to people of their own sex, rather than people of the opposite sex. Apart from that, they are as varied as heterosexuals are.
It is the interaction between the environment and the creature that produces the resulting circumstances. Genes are the blueprint for that creature.
Here I must go OT because I am compelled by my sleep deprivation. In a way the question of genetics vs environment resembles the question in history (as far as I know, I am no history major and do not care to follow the latest political developments in the field) of Great Man vs trends.
In this case Great Man is always the cause of everything. Trends result from the interaction between people. Each and every person makes decisions that shape the future. Each and every person is an Actor upon the present reality, each and every person is a Creator of the future. Each and every person is a Man, or let us say, Person. It just happens that the Great ones are particularly remembered.
Trends do not exist independent of the people.
WOW my articulation has completely failed beyond this point. Suffice to say that the creature does not exist independent of its genetic code. Environments can come and go but the genetic code is the creature. Without the genes and hence the creature, with all its properties and tendencies, there is no lifestory that unfolds.. the lifestory is not independent of the genetic code
I apologize if I am no Magic Lantern forcibly burning the brilliance of truth onto innocent minds. My mind is pretty tired and it is facile only to force out statements of which the truth is already known. To plan how to explain them well is beyond my abilities at the moment.
People do not exist in a bubble. Trends are always acting upon them. The nature of the interaction depends upon the properties of the individual in question and the trend in question.
It is up to the actions of the individual that will shape the future.
Trends source ultimately from the people. From the individuals. No matter how complex and large scale, all of it results from the interaction of the people with their environment.
Without the person, there is no action. Without the specific person, there is not that specific action. Without the people, there is no trend. It is inherent in the nature of human existence; again no person exists in a bubble. It is meaningless to separate the idea of trends out as some kind of magical force.
Similarly with genetics. Genetics makes the person. I do not know how much randomness there is in the universe so I will leave off extending the tyranny of determinism. When the genes change, the person template changes. The interaction between the genes and the environment continually produce an everchanging person. Amazingly, or deliriously, I have suddenly found this awesome way to visualize it.
The genes are the instructions, and the living system produced interacts with its environment. On the surface, this seems a mundane statement. I think I will have to leave off here cuz I am about to pass out and really, if people do not understand, it will take some special nuance better left to alertness
Delirium.
So while I agree that the extremes are rare they are there.
No you didn't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everyone wants homosexuality to be this thing that no one can change or touch. But modern science has proven that genetics don't force us into any sexual orientation. Therefore, it must be a psychological issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, nothing in science confirms this idea and unless you are familiar with the current research don't talk complete nonsense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So let's get down to the psychological argument here.
<a href='http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer3.html' target='_blank'>http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer3.html</a>
Again, from NARTH but it's a good read. It doesn't set anything in stone but through personal experience and studies like the twins, I can safely say that homosexuality is not unstoppable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am aware of Spitzers work, I'm also aware he has been torn a new one in the literature as well for many reasons.
Firstly, Spitzers work has been demonstrated to be flawed, such as his 2003 paper, <i>Can some **** men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation.</i>:
1) He found that individuals who had 'homosexual' behaviours taken from organisations that were predominantly anti-**** or were from other backgrounds (including being married) he found were able to be 'treated'.
2) Of his group, only 20 were actually homosexual (had never reported feelings for the opposite sex). As his study was conducted over the phone, and not in person plus no follow up after a year was conducted, this makes some of his claims suspect.
3) He has actually denied that wide spread theraputic 'treatment' would in fact be useful on a large amount of homosexuals, this has been quoted above.
With such a waffly, poorly designed study it is no wonder he found something.
<a href='http://www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzers-peers.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzers-peers.htm</a>
Other views on his 'findings' can be found here, with the general trend being that the study is nowhere near conclusive and has numerous flaws.
Of course, lets not forget Spitzer himself admits:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Spitzer explained that while his study results run counter "to the current view of most mental health professionals," who maintain that homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation, his report was "<b>based on a very unique sample.</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/24/11' target='_blank'>http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/24/11</a>
Unique indeed.
Secondly, another study, published by Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder. Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers' Report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 249-259 (2002); of 202 homosexuals 176 perceived themselves as having "failed conversion therapy" and 26 as having been successful. Notably however, only 8 of those 26 had made a 'full' conversion to heterosexuality, indicating that in a massive majority of cases therapy had completely failed.
Now what I demonstrate with this, is that Spitzers results seem questionable given the other studies published largely corroborating these low numbers. However, I note that homosexual behaviour can still possibly be altered in a low number of individuals, as has already ALSO been observed. Again, this is because factors such as genetics are not always going to be 100% hits, genetics can have a wide variation of effects on the final phenotype.
This is because, as you are trying to deliberately obsfuscate with NARTH and the like, is that the psychological society doesn't disagree therapy can work for that reason. Some people will respond to therapy (Shock horror!). What they <i>do</i> disagree with is that therapy works in a LARGE amount of cases and disturbingly, as work by Shidlo and Schroeder demonstrate, attempts to put homosexuals into therapy actually can <b>cause harm in many patients and lead to other side effects, such as depression</b>. As a result, this is why they do <b>not</b> <b>recommend</b> the treatment of homosexuals.
Again:
1) Studies indicating homosexual behaviour can be readily changed have been demonstrated to have significant flaws.
2) Studies have indicated that some homosexuals <i>may</i> have their behaviour altered.
3) Even though (2) appears to corroborate (1) it doesn't, because it is only a low minority and significant reports of where it goes wrong has lead to other conditions, including clinical depression.
4) This would be expected because genetics plays a variety of parts in determining phenotype, with some genotypes producing more extreme phenotypes than others (I am about to establish this below).
Thirdly:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In all species, sexual behavior is directed by a complex interplay between steroid hormone actions in the brain that give rise to sexual arousability and experience with sexual reward that gives rise to expectations of competent sexual activity, including sexual arousal, desire, and performance. Sexual experience allows animals to form instrumental and Pavlovian associations that predict sexual outcome and thereby directs the strength of sexual responding. Although the study of animal sexual behavior by neuroendocrinologists has traditionally been concerned with mechanisms of copulatory responding, more recent use of conditioning and preference paradigms, and a focus on environmental circumstances and experience, has revealed behaviors and processes that resemble human sexual responses. In this paper, we review behavioral paradigms used with rodents and other species that are analogous or homologous to human sexual arousal, desire, reward, and inhibition. The extent to which these behavioral paradigms offer predictive validity and practicality as preclinical tools and models is discussed. <b>Identification of common neurochemical and neuroanatomical substrates of sexual responding between animals and humans suggests that the evolution of sexual behavior has been highly conserved and indicates that animal models of human sexual response can be used successfully as preclinical tools</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pfaus JG, Kippin TE, Coria-Avila G. What can animal models tell us about human sexual response? Annual review of sex research. 2003;14:1-63.
This review indicates that it is reasonable to examine animal and human sexual responses and to justify my use of later reviews and such forth. This is not directly related.
This review however is (hence the above review):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Male sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior are thought, on the basis of experiments in rodents, to be caused by androgens, following conversion to estrogens. However, <b>observations in human subjects with genetic and other disorders show that direct effects of testosterone on the developing fetal brain are of major importance for the development of male gender identity and male heterosexual orientation[b]. [b]<i>Solid evidence for the importance of postnatal social factors is lacking</b></i>. In the human brain, <b>structural diferences have been described that seem to be related to gender identity and sexual orientation</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Swaab D.F. Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. <i>Gynecological endocrinology : the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology.</i> 2004 Dec;19(6):301-12.
This review, demonstrates very clearly that sexual behaviour is highly regulated by developmental biology and that social implications may be nowhere as conclusive as certain genetic factors. Testosterone levels and responses are particularly noted as having a notable effect on both animal models and are correlated with humans with similar genetic disorders.
Aside from the fact this annihilates your argument in one fell swoop, that <i>all</i> homosexuals have a choice, because clearly genetics <i>can</i> have a significant effect. Animal models have proven this, the fact we can't do such experiments in humans doesn't change the fact that numerous genetic analyses on hormone levels like testosterone have indicated alterations in sexual behaviour in humans.
<i>This indicates that homosexuality and other sexual related affairs may have a genetic component that can be more important than social outcomes</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We even call it the homosexual lifestyle.
And lifestyles can change. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not correct in all cases, such ridiculous blanket all or nothing statements are utterly devoid of reality and how things ultimately work. In the same way that someone who claims that ALL homosexuals are utterly, completely and absolutely that way and can't change is wrong, so too is the opposite statement you are making.
Also, just for amusement
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 1901 Dorland Medical Dictionary defines heterosexuality as "Abnormal or perverted appetite towards the opposite sex."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ethics and social policy in research on the neuroscience of human sexuality. Nature Neuroscience. Volume 7,2004.
Now stop filling this thread up with nonsense.
Okay, I don't normally venture into discussions so bare with me here.
I shall start with a short, somewhat off-topic story of my trials.
As normal, I logged on to the NS forums and went straight to the bottom with full intent of checking the off-topic forums. That, is when I saw this thread.
So I'm thinking to myself "Hmm, Bisexuality. That is a topic in which I have opinions I wish to discuss and somehow effects my everyday life. Maybe I should check it out"
"But wait! Don't the discussion forums have special rules in which to abide by? I should probably check those out, for while I don't generally venture there, they can be of interest once in a while. I would so hate to be restricted from them."
So, I read through the rules, remembering to note rule #6 which states
6.: Read through the other posts.
I think to myself "All right, not too hard, its only 6 pages"
Those are words that I shall never think again.
To say the least, it took a very long time to read everything. There are posts in here that contain more words in that single post than most of the 6 page topics in the "off-topic" forum.
But now, I can post. Hopefully. I think I may have forgotten something along the way. May nem0 have mercy upon my forum viewing privileges.
Unfortunately, being that there was so much to read, and ever so much to respond to, I have found it quite overwhelming to respond to all of it, or even a small portion. Instead, I shall state my ideas on bisexuality and well, hopefully won't derail too far and will not anger the mods or discussion regs too much for my somewhat blatent disregard for the rest of the thread, though I managed to read through all of it.
<b>Actual post!</b> (Wherein I state my opinions in hopes of someone reading)
Bisexuality is possibly the most vague word to have a somewhat definite meaning (that a person like boys and girls)
There are many different ways in which to rank bisexuality, and while some can cover it fairly well, for example The "Sphere" someone mentioned earlier, can't remember who it was, the thread was a fair read.. and others can make a general ball park figure (the Kinsley scale) I do not believe either scaling method is accurate, nor is it possible for one to be made.
Of course, my understanding of human emotions is that you simply can't understand them, thus I believe you can't chart or graph them.
This may be why I stopped to a certain therapist I had, because he kept trying to give me kinsley-esque ballpark figures for really deep emotional issues in my life, something that went against my beliefs.
I do not believe in the "[Almost] Everyone is [somewhat] bisexual" theory. This goes back to my lack of beliefs that you can't chart something like that. Such a vague term is fairly all-encompassing. To like both genders is assumed. I know there are people who downright hate one gender or another, but for the most part they play off stereotypes and irrational fears and phobias. I do not include these people in my assumptions, as I do not believe it is possible to downright loath 50% of your own species.
Now, from a simple "I like <person>", wether as a friend or a possible sexual partner, I believe any relationship, assuming the two people are of compatible personalities, can escalate to such a point where lines become blurred.
Most of course don't get to this point. One or both sides of the relationship will actively set down a line in which they believe it would not be right for things to escalate beyond. From that point onward they will consciously make sure things do not continue on that path. Now, why did they put down that line? Most likely, a feeling, a feeling that like all feelings is a great amalgamation of many different ideas.
There will often be a fairly dominant idea, "I do not want a relationship of that sort with <person> because they are <gender>" But I do not believe it can be said that it is infact the driving force behind the decision. Another idea in the feeling could easily be "I am not <sexual orientation>. I can not be <sexual orientation> and I refuse to ever be <sexual orientation> because I am <other sexual orientation>"
Of course, both ideas state the same thing, right? But the first one is a decision, and structured like a statement. The second is somewhat more frantic, sounding much like denial. I would assume the first to be more dominant in the feeling simply because it is harder to question it.
If someone asks about a feeling a person has, they generally have to sum it up as best as possible. In a situation such as a relationship you most likely do not want to say something they may question right off the bat. The same goes with how a person might explain the feeling to themselves.
Both ideas can be present in the feeling, neither need to be the driving force.
Now, looking back I understand that I just stated, very thoroughly that I believe if you remove irrational boundaries, everyone can be Bi.
If everyone on some level is infact bisexual, then what must you need to be classed as a bisexual person? Wouldn't we all just be people? Would there be any need for classification?
Not really, but people seem to like it that way. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
What classifies a person as a sexual orientation is simply their choice to voice what they believe they should be classified as.
There are Heterosexual people, there are bisexual people and there are homosexual people.
<b>But</b>, it doesn't stop there.
Possibly because I did the stupid thing of applying an example of emotions to something generally regarded as a more physical matter.
To rectify my mistake, I shall make another one, as not to set things straight but more properly crooked.
I believe Physical attraction is a much less complex thing compared to feelings.
I also believe you would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks otherwise.
But, I believe I could be wrong in both cases.
Person A is able to have an emotional relationship with people of either gender, but feels little to no sexual attraction to either.
While walking down the street with some friends, friend A might point out a very attractive young woman (Person B) to Person A. Person A did not spot Person C, their eyes simply did not draw to Person B. As such, Person A responds with an un-enthusiastic "Oh, yeah.. sure"
Later, Friend B points out an attractive young man (Person C) to Person A. Person A once again failed to notice. Again, responding in a somewhat un-enthusiastic "Yeah.. if you say so"
Person A constantly finds himself in these situations.
On the other hand, Person A has been in relationships with people of the opposite gender. In these situations, Person A did take part in certain sexual acts. Not for their own enjoyment, but to please the other person, and because "its only natural"
This is not to say Person A didn't enjoy these acts, but not for the normal reasons. Physically, they enjoyed the simulation, but found it somewhat awkward. They found more enjoyment simply in being able to please the person they cared about.
Currently though, person A has become involved in a relationship with someone of the same gender. Emotionally they find themselves more drawn to this person than anyone they previously met, but find the idea of sexual relations with them more awkward than with those of the other gender, and have informed their partner of such, without conflict.
So then, what is Person A?
Straight? Not likely, since they are in a relationship with someone of their gender.
Ga.y? Well, they have had sexual relations with someone of the opposite gender and feel uncomfortable with sexual relations with people of the same gender.
Bisexual? They feel awkward in sexual situations with either gender. Definite no.
They can't claim to be any of these classifications and thus are not any.
So, in conclusion,
On one level, everyone is bisexual.
On another, no one is.
But on the most common level, all you have to do is feel you are and say so.
Not everyone is bi, not everyone is straight and not everyone is ****.
Not everyone feels they fit those classifications, not everyone can say they do.
oh, and humans are crazy. I'd much rather live as a whale, spawned in space by an improbability drive only to crash down upon a planet which no one thought to exist outside of legends.
--------------
And that, is my first real step into the discussions forum.
Hope I didn't confuse too many people and completely contradict myself too many times..