Progressive experts: Please, don’t bother us with the facts

There is a long-running debate about whether homosexuals can “change” their basic sexual identity.  I have no idea.  I assume that a motivated homosexual can subordinate his identity.  People fight their biological urges all the time.  Whether that person is truly “changed” is another matter.  Perhaps it’s just a linguistics thing:  “subordinate” does or does not equal “change”.

The above are just my idle thoughts, and I really have no interest in pursuing them now.  What did interest me this morning was a New York Times online squiblet:

Isn’t that perfect?  “Experts” say gays can’t change, and they do so despite the actual evidence of men who claim to have changed (or maybe just subordinated their homosexual desires).  There it is, in one paragraph:  Thousands of men assert that they have changed — and experts claim that they’re lying because their claims run counter to theory.

You should read the whole article, which expands upon the apt summing up in that little paragraph.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Libby

    So typical that they can’t believe that it’s possible for people to control their natural urges. Sums up their whole approach to sexuality: give in to your urges & don’t judge others for doing the same. Anyone who doesn’t is a prude and a scold.

  • 11B40


    If I remember correctly, and I usually do, California’s Governor Brown recently signed legislation into law that prohibits parents from sending their children to such treatments.  This has left me somewhat confused about whether this is California 3.0 or a new episode of “All Your Children Belong to Us”.

  • Charles Martel

    One of the most insidious devices “journalists” use to insert their own opinions or slant a story is a phrase like “most scientists” or “many experts” [insert verb here]. If you pointed a gun at a typical journalist’s head and demanded, “What is the point where you reach ‘most?’ How many scientists hold the belief you say they do and where did you get your information about it?” you would be given the kind of dumbass deer-in-the-headlights look that Nancy Pelosi patented back in ’98.

  • MacG

    It was not all that long ago that the psycologics ‘normalized’ homosexuality and it is no longer a disease as they thought and taught for so long.  Now that they know they can’t go back very well and say otherwise can they so those who claim to change are statistical anomalies.  Gotta give ’em credit for cutting out a therapeutic revenue stream.  Maybe in time the ‘science’ will catch up and come clean like they did with Nebraska Man, Piltdown man and ontology recapitulating phylogeny in the human embryo (gill slits do not appear at any stage, so much for going through the evolutionary stages In Utero and how many still believe that because it was in their biology texts?).  But it will be a long time from now as those funding wheels do not respond well to steering.  

  • PaulScott

    It’s interesting that you take for granted the comment, “Mr. Smith is one of thousands of men across the country, often known as “ex-gay,” who believe they have changed their most basic sexual desires through some combination of therapy and prayer… ”

    Where did this “thousands of men” comment come from? There was no documentation of it anywhere. Is this a number he pulled out of his, ahem, ass?

    You also forgot to mention that further down in the story were these two relevant bits of information:

    “Reparative therapy suffered two other major setbacks this year. In April, a prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, publicly repudiated as invalid his own 2001 study suggesting that some people could change their sexual orientation; the study had been widely cited by defenders of the therapy.”
    “Then this summer, the ex-gay world was convulsed when Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, the largest Christian ministry for people fighting same-sex attraction, said he did not believe anyone could be rid of homosexual desires.”

    The biology of homosexuality is pretty well understood. The only problem stems from religious objections which should have no relevance in the public sphere.

  • Charles Martel

    I see you’re back from your victory celebration after so stunningly besting us here in a previous thread. Hope you’re well!
    Your quote:
     “The biology of homosexuality is pretty well understood. The only problem stems from religious objections which should have no relevance in the public sphere.”
    A simple request: Prove it. Show us one repeatable, falsifiable scientific study that establishes a biological basis for homosexuality. Please provide citations. Will a week do?
    Also, you don’t seem to have thought through your assertion that the “only problem” with homosexuality comes from religious objections. Communists are not religious yet every communist regime persecutes homosexuals. How does that square with “only”?
    Also, public health officials who have dealt for decades with the monstrous toll of diseases that come from homosexual behavior—everything from intestinal parasites, prolapsed anuses, and torn rectums to virulent strains of syphilis and gonorrhea to AIDS—might beg to differ with you as to the source of their objections to how certain people show their “affection” for one another.
    (We can get into your casual—and philosophically indefensible—assertion that religious beliefs have no relevance in the public square [I thought you were an inclusive sort?] later.)

  • PaulScott

    Charlie, why do you need a study to prove homosexuality exists? Isn’t the word of gay men and lesbian women enough proof that they are homosexual?

    Maybe I should have said the only problem “in our country” is from religious objections. I’m surprised you would side with communists on something. Maybe you harbor a secret desire to “be with commies”.

    Public health officials deal with all manner of problems from obesity, drinking, smoking and general mayhem. Why single out homosexuality?

  • Charles Martel

    I said proof of a “biological basis,” Paul–which I knew you would assiduously avoid providing. It’s hard to create something from nothing, no?
    I said communists act a certain way. Insisting that my simple statement means I agree with them would be like saying the fact PaulScott reads English must mean he understands it.

  • MacG

    I do think that when an alcoholic gives up the drink there remains temptation towards drinking.  I think the same for any sin that is given up.  Some have a stronger hold than others. Another quote from Alan Chambers in the same article linked to above: “I believe that any sexual expression outside of heterosexual, monogamous marriage is sinful according to the Bible,” Mr. Chambers emphasized. “But we’ve been asking people with same-sex attractions to overcome something in a way that we don’t ask of anyone else,” he said, noting that Christians with other sins, whether heterosexual lust, pornography, pride or gluttony, do not receive the same blanket condemnations.”    I think he is right.  When one becomes a Christian, repentance/metanoia is involved.  This means not groveling but as the writer of Romans says to change ones mind. “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” God knows about our spiritual weaknesses with the right frame of mind if we continue to fall towards the cross we will find peace with him spiritual warts and all.  AN ‘ex-gay” minister that I know said that she became a christian and no one told her of the biblical view of homosexuality and over time as she practiced metanoia it became clear to her at the right time between she and God that it was time to give that up too.   For me to throw the first stone about anybody’s sin is not really helpful especially with the proverbial log in my eye.  But what I would rather do is to encourage people to read the Gospel narratives for themselves, discover who this Jesus is and decide based on that verses what one sees the ‘church’ doing cuz we are pretty messed up at times. The thing is that Muslims are born Muslims and Jews are born Jews but there are none born Christian.  To get into that club you have to admit fault, throw yourself on the mercy of God and start from there – wherever that may be and be transformed in mind daily.  Some of us have farther to go than others but all have fallen short of the glory of God and begin our Christian journey from that imperfect point of our lives where we encounter and invite God. 

    Granted the following verse is for the lukewarm church but I think it applies to any who wish to enter a relationship with their creator” Revelation 3:14-22″ “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

    These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds,that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.  To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

  • PaulScott

    So, are you heterosexual? If so, what is your proof? Do you have a study that shows a biological basis for heterosexuality? What I meant by biological basis is the fact that approximately 10% of the population self identifies as gay or lesbian. No need for any studies to prove that.

    Well, do you side with the commies on homosexuality or not? Why are you avoiding the question? 

  • Bookworm

    Paul Scott,

    The biological basis for heterosexuality is the fact that the Male Tab A fits into the Female Slot B and, when the timing is right, creates a baby.  That’s manifestly mother nature’s plan with every life form:  Procreation.  There are always deviations from the norm, but the norm is procreative and the male and female anatomies, with their complementary procreative anatomy are proof of a biological basis for heterosexuality.

    I have no doubt that some homosexuality is biological in nature (hormones) while some is behavioral.  Think about the fact that homosexual conduct is rife in Muslim societies that strictly segregate male and female populations.  Or would you say that a disproportionate number of Muslim men in Afghanistan and other segregated Muslim societies are biologically gay? 

    One of my Mom’s vivid memories from the concentration camp years was the number of men who, when reunited with their wives, confessed to homosexual interactions in their male-only camps.  The biological urge for these starved, abused, sick, lonely men was the relief of an orgasm, rather than full-blown homosexuality.  And to the extent it was a moment of pleasure in a death-filled existence, I’m sure that, for many, the post-war years saw them contemplating or engaging in further homosexual conduct, even as they lived primarily heterosexual lives.

  • Danny Lemieux

    One of the most interesting observations on homosexuality (not lesbianism…I should emphasize) was by James Dobson, Christian evangelical minister and also child psychologist. By his observation, having counseled many “homosexual” kids, he hypothesized that there is a point in the psychological development of humans where we imprint our sexual identity. His observation was that those youths he counseled came from families where the family was defined by a dominant mother figure and a very beta father figure. In Dobson’s view, the homosexual boys he counseled were trying to imitate their mothers. Another perspective, also based on sexual identity imprinting, refers to young boys being raped by men as their sexual identity was forming. A very poignant reference thereto was provided by Ronald Reagan’s son, Michael, who was sodomized by a male baby sitter. These are very interesting hypotheses that merit further investigation (chance of that happening in this politically correct environment – zero!). However, there is ZERO evidence of a homosexuality gene…there is only speculation. That’s the facts.

  • MacG

    From a secular evolution standpoint what’s the advantage?  If it is biological, it would appear to be a cosmic particle mutation of the hetero rather than vice versa. It does nothing to promote the species but for some reason has not been snipped on the cellular level by the clean up proteins.  Perhaps the theory of evolution is lacking here but the Creation model of the creation starting out perfect and has been subject to the second law of thermodynamics would explain it. if it is entirely physical.


  • Charles Martel

    Paul, forgive me. I did not read your mind. I took your assertion that homosexuality has a biological basis at face value. Silly me, I should have known that you reserved to yourself the right to redefine the phrase to mean something else. That is probably the thing that endears me the most to my little leftist friends, their ability to bend reality at whim. 
    Regarding your feint toward getting the topic off track by asking me whether I agree with communists about their penchant for persecuting homosexuals, I’m afraid I’m going to have to disappoint you: I do not agree with the persecution of anybody.
    But don’t let that stop you. This would be a splendid opportunity for you to redefine persecution as having people oppose your particular philosophical and pseudo-scientific beliefs.

  • Mike Devx

    I’d like to suggest that it’s useful to separate “homosexual activity” from “homosexual love and attraction.”

    When it comes to the sex, there are apparently quite a few guys who, though completely heterosexual, will have sex with just about any alternative when the female persuasion is lacking.  That accounts for the unusually high activity in Islamic countries (or any male-female segregated culture) and it accounts for prison rape.  These are not budding homosexuals; these are guys whose next action if thwarted would be to carve a hole in a mattress and have at it.

    I also wouldn’t pay much attention to “experimentation”, such as exploratory activity among young teenagers.  I wouldn’t even call it a phase.  They don’t really know what they’re doing; it’s akin to trying out a new flavor of ice cream that turns out to be not very appealing, and quickly dropped.

    In my opinion, though, it’s a completely different story when you are talking about homosexual *desire* and love.

  • Bookworm

    That’s a very useful distinction, Mike. And a useful reminder that love and sex aren’t always the same thing, something that’s true whether one is gay or straight. 

    Anyway, I just liked how silly it was for experts to deny people’s own feelings regarding a topic that, at least as to some, can be subjective or malleable.  

  • Mike Devx

    When it comes to homosexual desire and love, I have no idea myself what the cause is (or causes are).

    The arguments on both sides sometimes seem circular to me.  Homosexuality is a perversion!  Why?  Because it is unnatural!  Why is it unnatural?  Because it is a perversion!  No, no, homosexuality is completely natural.  Why?  Because it’s normal!  But why is it normal?  Because it’s natural.

    You can also keep your desires fully intact and yet refuse to ever act upon them.  That does take significant will power, but it can be done.  It’s also easily possible to put a lid on your desires; to wall them off.  People in business do this often, because they *must*.  What else are you to do when engaged in business, and you are confronted with a colleague that is breathlessly, outrageously *hot*?  You put a lid on it and clamp down hard.  It will get MUCH MUCH more difficult to do that if the two of you must share a cube, or an office, or a small meeting room for months at a time, though.  But suppression/repression of desire does work when the motivation is high enough.

    I see no compelling proof of any sort in the biology vs environment debate.  It might be one or other other or a combination of both; and it might vary on a case by case basis.  There’s no proof of any sort anywhere that I can see.  As I’ve said at times in the past when it is relevant, I am gay.  But I’m not willing to give anyone a reason why, when I have no idea nor proof myself; and no one else truly seems to have even a shred of proof either.


  • Ron19

    “I am attracted to/infatuated with/in love with that person over there, but indulging my attraction/infatution/love with that person is not a good idea.”

    Same for that glass of wine or piece of cake or that new car.  I know, some feelings are stronger than others, and situations vary all over the place. 

    That is not a sexual identity condition, that is a human condition.  

  • Ymarsakar

    The fact is that the Left is an evil organization and that people who underestimate its power and influence over American prosperity and security, are going to be in a rude awakening. Assume they ever get the chance to wake up to begin with, what with being buried alive six feet under soon in store.