Family Values Legislator Brags About Mistress

[grbeck]

as far as you know.........

 

Do you think someone could "cure" you from being attracted to women? Of course not! That's ridiculous.

 

If it's ridiculous, you need to take it up with them. And, for the record, I do trust them. You don't know them, so it may be best to stop going by what you think you know, because what you really know in this case isn't sufficient.

 

As I said, it's best to approach this with an open mind. Unfortunately, many gays, and their supporters, tend to be very parochial and unsophisticated about this subject.

Edited September 15, 2009 by grbeck

[akirby]

If it's ridiculous, you need to take it up with them. And, for the record, I do trust them. You don't know them, so it may be best to stop going by what you think you know, because what you really know in this case isn't sufficient.

 

As I said, it's best to approach this with an open mind. Unfortunately, many gays, and their supporters, tend to be very parochial and unsophisticated about this subject.

 

With all due respect - there is no way for anyone to know what's in someone else's mind. The ridiculous comment was not directed at them - re-read what I posted.

 

I'm not talking about people who experiment sexually or are doing things just for fun. I'm talking about people who are emotionally and physically attracted to the same sex. There is no way I could ever be attracted to another guy, so I don't understand how a person could just decide to do that. Telling a gay person that they should simply stop being attracted to guys and start liking girls is no different than telling you that you should stop liking girls and start liking guys. That's the ridiculous part.

 

There is no logical explanation for gays and lesbians other than a physical cause in the brain. Whether it's genetic or induced after birth - I don't know. But saying it's a voluntary behavior that can be changed is rather silly.

[grbeck]

With all due respect - there is no way for anyone to know what's in someone else's mind. The ridiculous comment was not directed at them - re-read what I posted.

 

I'm not talking about people who experiment sexually or are doing things just for fun. I'm talking about people who are emotionally and physically attracted to the same sex. There is no way I could ever be attracted to another guy, so I don't understand how a person could just decide to do that. Telling a gay person that they should simply stop being attracted to guys and start liking girls is no different than telling you that you should stop liking girls and start liking guys. That's the ridiculous part.

 

There is no logical explanation for gays and lesbians other than a physical cause in the brain. Whether it's genetic or induced after birth - I don't know. But saying it's a voluntary behavior that can be changed is rather silly.

 

No one told them to simply start preferring women, give up men and get married (which they did). They underwent the therapy that supposedly doesn't work. Well, it apparently did. If their experiences don't fit with the prejudices or beliefs of certain segments of society - too bad. That is their problem.

 

That is not to say that anyone should ever be forced to undergo this therapy. People should live their lives as they wish, as long as it involves consenting adults.

 

And there are plenty of non-physical explanations for people's sexual drives and habits - family atmosphere, sexual assault or molestation at an early age, or even environment (prison, for example).

 

Of course, to believe that this is all driven by biology raises certain uncomfortable questions. Are people born preferring to have sex with children? Are certain men pre-disposed to being rapists? Does this therefore mean that, once they are caught, they can never be paroled into society, because they are incurable?

[akirby]

No one told them to simply start preferring women, give up men and get married (which they did). They underwent the therapy that supposedly doesn't work. Well, it apparently did. If their experiences don't fit with the prejudices or beliefs of certain segments of society - too bad. That is their problem.

 

That is not to say that anyone should ever be forced to undergo this therapy. People should live their lives as they wish, as long as it involves consenting adults.

 

And there are plenty of non-physical explanations for people's sexual drives and habits - family atmosphere, sexual assault or molestation at an early age, or even environment (prison, for example).

 

Of course, to believe that this is all driven by biology raises certain uncomfortable questions. Are people born preferring to have sex with children? Are certain men pre-disposed to being rapists? Does this therefore mean that, once they are caught, they can never be paroled into society, because they are incurable?

 

This has NOTHING to do with child molesters or rapists.

 

There is a TON of pressure in society to be straight. I personally know a man who got married and had kids because that was the "right" thing to do. He finally realized that he was really gay and has been with his current partner for over 15 years. Just because they're married to women now doesn't mean anything. Maybe they weren't really gay to start with or maybe they're still gay and simply refuse to acknowledge it.

 

Back to my original question - do you think someone could give you this "therapy" and suddenly cause you to be attracted to men? If your theory is correct then that's certainly possible.

[macattak1]

With all due respect - there is no way for anyone to know what's in someone else's mind. The ridiculous comment was not directed at them - re-read what I posted.

 

I'm not talking about people who experiment sexually or are doing things just for fun. I'm talking about people who are emotionally and physically attracted to the same sex. There is no way I could ever be attracted to another guy, so I don't understand how a person could just decide to do that. Telling a gay person that they should simply stop being attracted to guys and start liking girls is no different than telling you that you should stop liking girls and start liking guys. That's the ridiculous part.

 

There is no logical explanation for gays and lesbians other than a physical cause in the brain. Whether it's genetic or induced after birth - I don't know. But saying it's a voluntary behavior that can be changed is rather silly.

 

You are not Able OR not willing to find ANY logical reason for homosexuality other then biological?

 

Physical, emotional, and sexual abuse being the three primaries.

 

It does not have to be voluntary either. People do all sorts of things due to programing. Look at hostages held for a 3+ months. That is all it often takes for them to start leaning towards the hostage takers as being the victims and the ones being abused instead of themselves or the hostage takers other targets, etc. Patty Hearst?

 

Also note, that you can dress a boy as a girl from birth till about 5 to 6 years of age on average. If you stop when they say they do not want to be dressed like little girls that is basically the end of it. You can't turn a boy into a 'girl' or a homosexual simply by indirect attempts. It takes a lot more physical, emotional, or sexual abuse to get that out come.

 

Peace and Blessings

[grbeck]

This has NOTHING to do with child molesters or rapists.

 

Yes, it does have something to do with child molesters and rapists, because they claim that these feelings are natural, and they need to express them. Please explain why, if homosexuality has biological roots, that these expressions of sexuality (and that is what these behaviors are) are any different? Why, then, do we attempt to treat these behaviors when they are biological in origin?

 

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Remember, you were the one who posited that this has it roots in "the brain" (i.e., biology) with these words - There is no logical explanation for gays and lesbians other than a physical cause in the brain.

 

If homosexuality is entirely biological in its roots, then why wouldn't pedophilia or other unfortunate manifestations of sexual expression also have biological roots?

 

There is a TON of pressure in society to be straight. I personally know a man who got married and had kids because that was the "right" thing to do. He finally realized that he was really gay and has been with his current partner for over 15 years. Just because they're married to women now doesn't mean anything. Maybe they weren't really gay to start with or maybe they're still gay and simply refuse to acknowledge it.

 

There plenty of areas where gay men can go to live their lives peacefully. And not just in San Francisco and New York City. There is a thriving gay community here in my city, which is universally cited as being rather boring and conservative. One city councilman is openly gay. It's not 1955 anymore. It's not as though these men were going to be blacklisted from their professions, or forced to wear the scarlet letter, because they decided to live the openly gay lifestyle.

 

You have no idea about these men or their lives. They were having sex with men on a regular basis. They openly admit that (and if the pressure to be straight is so great, they would not admit it). Last time I checked, that would have made them gay. Until you have actually talked to them, you need to at least stop engaging in frantic conjecture about them to protect your beliefs.

 

Back to my original question - do you think someone could give you this "therapy" and suddenly cause you to be attracted to men? If your theory is correct then that's certainly possible.

 

You don't need therapy to do that. Ever heard of prison? Do you know what goes in there? Do you think that only gay people get sent to prison?

Edited September 15, 2009 by grbeck

[akirby]

You are not Able OR not willing to find ANY logical reason for homosexuality other then biological?

 

Physical, emotional, and sexual abuse being the three primaries.

 

If you consider that the difference between men and women is biological, then doesn't it make sense that the part of the brain that determines who one is attracted to is biologically different between men and women?

 

Are you seriously saying that gay people gay because they are physically, emotionally or sexually abused? That is simply ridiculous. I know many gay people who have never been abused.

 

Why don't you just admit that this belief is based on your religious beliefs that God would not create a homosexual therefore there must be some external cause and that cause can be cured?

[Mark B. Morrow]

No one told them to simply start preferring women, give up men and get married (which they did). They underwent the therapy that supposedly doesn't work. Well, it apparently did. If their experiences don't fit with the prejudices or beliefs of certain segments of society - too bad. That is their problem.

 

That is not to say that anyone should ever be forced to undergo this therapy. People should live their lives as they wish, as long as it involves consenting adults.

 

And there are plenty of non-physical explanations for people's sexual drives and habits - family atmosphere, sexual assault or molestation at an early age, or even environment (prison, for example).

 

Of course, to believe that this is all driven by biology raises certain uncomfortable questions. Are people born preferring to have sex with children? Are certain men pre-disposed to being rapists? Does this therefore mean that, once they are caught, they can never be paroled into society, because they are incurable?

 

 

You don't think that societal pressure, religious teaching or disapproval of family and friends might have had a part in it? I wonder if they would have felt the need for therapy to change in those around them had been more accepting. I have worked with many gay and lesbian clients over the years who married and had kids despite their sexual orientation. It was just easier for them to conform. Since they were my divorce clients, I can tell you it didn't work.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Yes, it does have something to do with child molesters and rapists, because they claim that these feelings are natural, and they need to express them. Please explain why, if homosexuality has biological roots, that these expressions of sexuality (and that is what these behaviors are) are any different? Why, then, do we attempt to treat these behaviors when they are biological in origin?

 

 

Homosexual orientation has absolutely NOTHING to do with child molesters or rapists. The comparison is dead wrong and highly offensive. There is a huge difference between consensual sex between adults and child molestation or rape. Would you say that heterosexuality is on par with child molestation or rape? Most of those crimes are heterosexual.

 

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Remember, you were the one who posited that this has it roots in "the brain" (i.e., biology) with these words - There is no logical explanation for gays and lesbians other than a physical cause in the brain.

 

If homosexuality is entirely biological in its roots, then why wouldn't pedophilia or other unfortunate manifestations of sexual expression also have biological roots?

 

Homosexuality between consenting adults is not a crime. Child Molestation and Rape are crimes no matter the orientation of the person. The issue is age of the victim and consent. This is perhaps the dumbest argument on this topic. Would it be OK if the rapist is straight? Of course not.

 

 

 

There plenty of areas where gay men can go to live their lives peacefully. And not just in San Francisco and New York City. There is a thriving gay community here in my city, which is universally cited as being rather boring and conservative. One city councilman is openly gay. It's not 1955 anymore. It's not as though these men were going to be blacklisted from their professions, or forced to wear the scarlet letter, because they decided to live the openly gay lifestyle.

 

There are plenty of families and places where it is not accepted. So what?

 

You have no idea about these men or their lives. They were having sex with men on a regular basis. They openly admit that (and if the pressure to be straight is so great, they would not admit it). Last time I checked, that would have made them gay. Until you have actually talked to them, you need to at least stop engaging in frantic conjecture about them to protect your beliefs.

 

Converts are often the most zealous. Perhaps they don't deny their past because it fits their new life.

 

 

You don't need therapy to do that. Ever heard of prison? Do you know what goes in there? Do you think that only gay people get sent to prison?

 

Being raped or committing rape in prison does not prove one's sexual orientation. Do you think that there would be lots of heterosexual activity in prison if men and women were housed together? I'm certainly not suggesting that, but I would bet that if given a choice most men in prison would prefer women.

[grbeck]

You don't think that societal pressure, religious teaching or disapproval of family and friends might have had a part in it? I wonder if they would have felt the need for therapy to change in those around them had been more accepting. I have worked with many gay and lesbian clients over the years who married and had kids despite their sexual orientation. It was just easier for them to conform. Since they were my divorce clients, I can tell you it didn't work.

 

Perhaps they just wanted to? It's amusing how hard this is to accept for some people. I guess the much-reviled Religious Right isn't the only group that can't think outside the box...

[Ralph Greene]

RE Original subject.....Stupid and lack of character are not confined to one political party.

[Deanh]

RE Original subject.....Stupid and lack of character are not confined to one political party.

or ( to cover just about every thread ), race or creed , political or religious beleifs.........

[grbeck]

Mark Morrow: Homosexual orientation has absolutely NOTHING to do with child molesters or rapists. The comparison is dead wrong and highly offensive.

 

No, it's part of the discussion. If homosexuality has its roots in biological factors, then it is fair to ask whether other manifestations of sexuality are also biological in nature. The frantic attempt to avoid this central question shows that it hits home.

 

As they said in the 1980s - a bigot is a conservative who is winning the argument. Complaining about offensiveness is, to those in the know, an attempt to derail the argument because the other side is either winning or has the better argument. So I'd suggest not using it.

 

There is a huge difference between consensual sex between adults and child molestation or rape.

 

Yes, but's that not the central question. The question is whether those expressions of sexuality are biological in nature. Whether there is a huge difference in the expressions of sexuality is irrelevant. We've already figured out that.

 

Mark Morrow: Would you say that heterosexuality is on par with child molestation or rape? Most of those crimes are heterosexual.

 

I never said that homosexuality is on par with those expressions of sexuality.

 

What I said is that if two expressions of sexual preference - heterosexuality and homosexuality - have their roots in biological factors, then why don't other expressions of sexuality also have their roots in biology? Should we accept pedophilia and rape, or stop trying to treat them, or accept that these people who do these things can never be changed, so we should therefore give them life sentences without the hope of parole if found guilty of committing these offenses?

 

If sexuality is solely biological in nature, then the proponents of that theory need to accept ALL of the real-world ramifications of that view, not just the ones that fit their present agenda.

 

Mark Marrow: Homosexuality between consenting adults is not a crime. Child Molestation and Rape are crimes no matter the orientation of the person. The issue is age of the victim and consent.

 

Whether it is a crime is irrelevant to this discussion. No one is suggesting that homosexuals should be thrown into jail (which would be pointless anyway, considering what occurs now in prisons).

 

The question is whether these behaviors have their roots in biological factors, or environmental factors.

 

People were once thrown in jail for committing homosexual acts in most western countries, so the only thing that changed was society's views on whether the behavoir was worthy of criminal sanction. For that matter, the ancient Greeks approved of behavior between men and boys that gets people thrown into jail today. The definition of what constitutes a crime has changed over the years. The question of whether these behaviors are the result of nature or nurture, or some combination thereof, is still relevant today.

 

Mark Morrow: This is perhaps the dumbest argument on this topic.

 

Don't ever call me or my arguments dumb again.

 

Mark Morrow: Would it be OK if the rapist is straight? Of course not.

 

I never said that; neither did anyone else.

 

Mark Morrow: There are plenty of families and places where it is not accepted. So what?

 

The original point was that society was supposedly driving these men (i.e., the men I referred to who left the gay lifestyle) into the closet. Well, that is not the case, and there are plenty of places where one can live a gay lifestyle quite freely, without sanction or even society's disapproval.

 

Mark Morrow: Converts are often the most zealous. Perhaps they don't deny their past because it fits their new life.

 

You know this despite having never met them? What happened to that famous tolerance and open-mindedness that those on the left are supposed to possess in overflowing abundance?

 

The simple fact is that their lives don't fit your view of the way things should be; it annoys you or confuses you; so you desperately try to explain it away. The attempts to make it go away - I'm waiting for the accusation that right-wingers kidnapped them and used electroshock therapy or torture to get them to renounce their gay lifestyle - grow more amusing with each post.

 

As I said, it's best to approach this question with an open mind and a more sophisticated understanding of the issue than the conventional one adopted by the left.

 

Mark Morrow: Being raped or committing rape in prison does not prove one's sexual orientation.

 

You would have a point if all prison sex consisted of rape, but not all prison sex is the result of rape; not all males having consensual in prison sex were gay before they went to prison.

 

Mark Morrow: Do you think that there would be lots of heterosexual activity in prison if men and women were housed together? I'm certainly not suggesting that, but I would bet that if given a choice most men in prison would prefer women.

 

Irrelevant - what matters is what they are doing NOW, which requires two active and eager participants.

Edited September 15, 2009 by grbeck

[Edstock]

Irrelevant - what matters is what they are doing NOW, which requires two active and eager participants.

Well, you're not dumb, but that statement sure is, "what they are doing NOW" could be rape, which requires only one active and eager partner; the other could even be unconscious.

 

You'll have to do better than that.

[xr7g428]

I am willing to concede that Mark certainly knows more about prison sex than the rest of us. In fact, I would go so far as to recommend that he should have the opportunity to learn it from the inside out. Heck, when it comes to prison sex, Mark is your man, er bi.... Just kidding Mark! LOL!

[Mark B. Morrow]

I am willing to concede that Mark certainly knows more about prison sex than the rest of us. In fact, I would go so far as to recommend that he should have the opportunity to learn it from the inside out. Heck, when it comes to prison sex, Mark is your man, er bi.... Just kidding Mark! LOL!

 

 

I know you're just kidding Xr7g428.

 

One of the female clients in my office got a letter from her ex a few years ago that I have kept posted on my bulletin board. He found himself in the county jail for refusing to pay child support and he wrote to taunt his ex-wife that jail wasn't so bad, just hanging out with the guys playing basketball and watching TV. "There's no butt raping going on here like you see on OZ". "I'm doing great."

 

The letter was a nice piece of evidence to hand the Judge when he was begging to get out and trying to make a deal to pay a fraction of what he owed. As I recall, he found the money somewhere.

[Mark B. Morrow]

No, it's part of the discussion. If homosexuality has its roots in biological factors, then it is fair to ask whether other manifestations of sexuality are also biological in nature. The frantic attempt to avoid this central question shows that it hits home.

 

There is a big difference between committing a crime against a child or an unwilling victim and being physically attracted to members of the same sex. It is NOT a legitimate part of the discussion because whether or not pedophelia or the urge to commit rape is based on biological factors or is the product of mental disease, acting on those urges is criminal. Again, since most cases of child molestation and rape are heterosexual in nature, I suppose we should be blaming heterosexual orientation for these acts.

 

As they said in the 1980s - a bigot is a conservative who is winning the argument. Complaining about offensiveness is, to those in the know, an attempt to derail the argument because the other side is either winning or has the better argument. So I'd suggest not using it.

 

YOU aren't winning anything here. I suppose the same kind of thing could be said now that - a Socialist is a Liberal who is winning the argument.

 

 

Yes, but's that not the central question. The question is whether those expressions of sexuality are biological in nature. Whether there is a huge difference in the expressions of sexuality is irrelevant. We've already figured out that.

 

You have added nothing to the discussion by comparing homosexuality to child molestation and rape. Care to go Full Santorum and add beastiality and incest?

 

I never said that homosexuality is on par with those expressions of sexuality.

 

You compared them as stemming from a common source i.e. biology or not biology. You fail to concede that it is possible for homosexuality to be biological without the necessity for pedophilia and rape to be as well.

 

What I said is that if two expressions of sexual preference - heterosexuality and homosexuality - have their roots in biological factors, then why don't other expressions of sexuality also have their roots in biology? Should we accept pedophilia and rape, or stop trying to treat them, or accept that these people who do these things can never be changed, so we should therefore give them life sentences without the hope of parole if found guilty of committing these offenses?

 

We don't accept biology as an excuse for crime. Whether these people can be treated does not necessarily require that we accept that they are biologically driven to commit these acts. A predilection towards alcoholism is considered to be hereditary and yet we don't excuse drunk drivers who kill people. The current opinion is that pedophiles are very hard to treat successfully. That doesn't mean none can be treated. Statistically they have a high rate of recitivism.

 

If sexuality is solely biological in nature, then the proponents of that theory need to accept ALL of the real-world ramifications of that view, not just the ones that fit their present agenda.

 

What real world ramifications? It is a crime to rape just as it is a crime to murder or steal. Again, your comparison fails because you are trying to liken consensual behavior between adults with crimes.

 

Whether it is a crime is irrelevant to this discussion. No one is suggesting that homosexuals should be thrown into jail (which would be pointless anyway, considering what occurs now in prisons).

 

The question is whether these behaviors have their roots in biological factors, or environmental factors.

 

Once again you trivialize the difference. Being thrown in jail for acting on your sexual attraction with a like minded adult does not hurt or damage anyone else. Your flip reaction to the loss of liberty "considering what occurs now in prisons" is surprising. It isn't like homosexuals would enjoy prison.

 

People were once thrown in jail for committing homosexual acts in most western countries, so the only thing that changed was society's views on whether the behavoir was worthy of criminal sanction. For that matter, the ancient Greeks approved of behavior between men and boys that gets people thrown into jail today. The definition of what constitutes a crime has changed over the years. The question of whether these behaviors are the result of nature or nurture, or some combination thereof, is still relevant today.

 

It wasn't that long ago that we still had laws on the books in this country against consensual sodomy and oral sex. See Bowers v. Hardwick (US Supreme Ct 1986) upholding Georgia's statute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick Bowers wasn't overruled until 2003 in Laurence v. Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas BTW if Scalia and Thomas had their way Bowers would still be the law.

 

Hardwick and Laurence were arrested and deprived of their liberty.

 

Don't ever call me or my arguments dumb again.

 

I did not call you dumb. I have a very high respect for your intelligence. I did call your argument dumb because I believe that it is dumb. I call them as I see tham as do you. By the way, I have made dumb arguments too. Sometimes being called out on it has given me cause to reconsider my position and change it.

 

You provide nothing more than anecdotal recitation of some people you know who claimed to have engaged in sex with other men, may or may not have been gay and may or may not have changed their sexual orientation. Sorry, that is not convincing evidence. People act for lots of reasons. Rock Hudson dated lots of women. That didn't make him straight. There are scientific studies going on trying to figure out what role biology may play in homosexuality. I don't know if we will ever have a definitive answer. Maybe God just makes some people Gay. That works for me just as well.

 

I never said that; neither did anyone else.

 

I didn't say that you did think it would be alright if the rapist was straight. The point I was making was that you are lumping homosexuality in with criminal behavior that is more often committed by heterosexuals.

 

The original point was that society was supposedly driving these men (i.e., the men I referred to who left the gay lifestyle) into the closet. Well, that is not the case, and there are plenty of places where one can live a gay lifestyle quite freely, without sanction or even society's disapproval.

 

There may be places one could go where being homosexual is very accepted. That doesn't explain why some people choose to stay closeted. There are many reasons including family and religious upbringing. The fact that they can leave a town doesn't answer all the issues as to why they may not choose to do so.

 

You know this despite having never met them? What happened to that famous tolerance and open-mindedness that those on the left are supposed to possess in overflowing abundance?

 

I am perfectly tolerant of anyone who wants to live his or her life in any manner that suits them so long as they do not force others to join them. I don't have any need to judge them. Their story just can't be extrapolated to represent all Gay people.

 

The simple fact is that their lives don't fit your view of the way things should be; it annoys you or confuses you; so you desperately try to explain it away. The attempts to make it go away - I'm waiting for the accusation that right-wingers kidnapped them and used electroshock therapy or torture to get them to renounce their gay lifestyle - grow more amusing with each post.

 

If your friends are happy, good for them. I knew girls in college who exclusively dated women, (which was quite outside the norm in 1979) who are now many years married to men. Were they Gay? I don't presume to know. I have female friends from high school who dated guys who are in committed long term Lesbian relationships. Were they straight? Again, I don't have a clue.

 

As long as no one is "cured' against their will, I really don't care. I do not have an agenda in people being anything other than happy with their lives. Your insistence that homosexuality can't be biological strikes me as more of an agenda to belittle gays and lesbians.

 

Afterall, if it is just a choice of actions and conduct, there is no reason they can't be treated differently for their choices and no reason to allow them the same right as heterosexuals have.

 

This brings me back to the offensiveness of you comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and rape.

 

As I said, it's best to approach this question with an open mind and a more sophisticated understanding of the issue than the conventional one adopted by the left.

 

I don't see you as having an open mind on this issue. My position is that if Gays say they were born that way, who am I to question what they feel. Honestly it really doesn't make a bit of difference to me and my life what someone else's orientation is or how it came to be.

 

So why is it so important to you that it not be biological?

 

 

You would have a point if all prison sex consisted of rape, but not all prison sex is the result of rape; not all males having consensual in prison sex were gay before they went to prison.

 

Irrelevant - what matters is what they are doing NOW, which requires two active and eager participants.

 

And not all would be having gay sex once they are out. The prison anology doesn't work because of the lack of choices Gay sex or no sex. While not all proson sex is rape not all is consensual either. Not everyone who engages in gay sex has to be exclusively gay. There are those who consider themselves to be Bisexual. They find themselves attracted to either sex.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow

[macattak1]

If you consider that the difference between men and women is biological, then doesn't it make sense that the part of the brain that determines who one is attracted to is biologically different between men and women?

 

Are you seriously saying that gay people gay because they are physically, emotionally or sexually abused? That is simply ridiculous. I know many gay people who have never been abused.

 

Why don't you just admit that this belief is based on your religious beliefs that God would not create a homosexual therefore there must be some external cause and that cause can be cured?

 

I actually have no idea if God creates homosexuals or if it is 100% environment, or what not? Regardless, God is clear on sin.

 

Do you know any men or women that were raped? Because rape messes people up to the extremes. No one wants it to be public. Men least of all! Those people are left with monolithic issues that permeate their lives for ever.

 

Do you know any molested people? And not in an attempt to slight those that were molested once or twice, but those that were molested for years. Any of them can be left with monolithic issues that permeate their lives for ever.

 

Do you know anyone that was verbally or physically abused to the extremes and could never meet any of their parents needs, desires, requirements, etc? Those people are left with monolithic issues that permeate their lives for ever.

 

I know the above more then I would like. I have worked at fortune 100 and 500 companies and been around the GLOBE groups and spent years working and existing around active homosexual groups. My wife worked with them for over a decade as co-workers. She worked with the abused kids that become adults and enter into the life style of their choice. It is not pretty. And few become full time homosexuals because few go to those extremes. But it happens a lot in comparison to the actual size of the homosexual population.

 

So you may know gay people. But are they telling you their lives most darkest secretes? Work with them for 10 years in a social work type setting where people do share, let their guards down, and work within the same boundaries as they may have experienced themselves and things come out. They don't show up at the bar, a party, or go fishing with you and tell you how their dad, uncle, neighbor, teacher, or whom ever molested them for years.

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

"Homosexual orientation has absolutely NOTHING to do with child molesters or rapists. The comparison is dead wrong and highly offensive. There is a huge difference between consensual sex between adults and child molestation or rape. Would you say that heterosexuality is on par with child molestation or rape? Most of those crimes are heterosexual."

 

Not quite true. Adult sex with minors in the homosexual crowd is at least equal to the heterosexual crowd. So there is a concern. Just like there is regarding older men and younger women or girls. So to say there is Nothing there is highly inaccurate or worse.

 

Additionally, homosexual adult/minor sex is on a different level then heterosexual adult/minor sex. I.e. a 19 year old and a 17 year old. Still inappropriate age wise. And it may even be coerced sex. But it rarely would present the same scars on the child compared to homosexual coerced sex.

 

Peace and Blessings

[akirby]

You can't prove cause and effect. How do you know a person was heterosexual and became homosexual due to some abuse?

 

We know the difference between men and women is biological at the chromosome level. And the primary difference between men and women (other than the obvious physical differences) is sexual preference. Therefore sexual preference must be biological. Somewhere along the line 10% of the population has a biological anomaly that causes an opposite sexual preference.

 

If abuse or molestation causes heterosexuals to become homosexuals then the opposite should also be possible - homosexuals could become heterosexuals. And I don't hear about that happening.

 

Believe what you want but you're ignoring the obvious scientific explanation.

[grbeck]

Mark Morrow: There is a big difference between committing a crime against a child or an unwilling victim and being physically attracted to members of the same sex. It is NOT a legitimate part of the discussion because whether or not pedophelia or the urge to commit rape is based on biological factors or is the product of mental disease, acting on those urges is criminal. Again, since most cases of child molestation and rape are heterosexual in nature, I suppose we should be blaming heterosexual orientation for these acts.

 

It IS a legitimate part of the discussion, because if sexuality has it roots solely in biological factors, then we have to ask how we treat pedophilia and serial rapists. Homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't the only expressions of sexuality.

 

What will not be allowed is the contention that some expressions are inborn, but others are the result of other, non-biological factors, when it is convenient or suits our purposes. That is having it both ways.

 

Whether child molestation and rape are largely heterosexual in nature is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether expressions of sexuality are rooted in biology, and, if so, what needs to be done about it. If we therefore can't cure pedophiles or serial rapists, then we have to rethink how we punish them.

 

Mark Morrow: YOU aren't winning anything here. I suppose the same kind of thing could be said now that - a Socialist is a Liberal who is winning the argument.

 

I've introduced a hypothesis that apparently is very challenging to some posters - that sexuality can be changed, and then asked that if all sexuality is rooted in biological factors and cannot be changed, as others contend, then how will we address the other ramifications of this idea.

 

The question is whether sexuality is the result of biological factors. These distractions are irrelevant:

 

*what behaviors are currently illegal and legal;

*whether those expressions of sexuality are different from each other;

*whether the majority of pedophiles and rapists are heterosexual;

*and whether homosexuals might be offended by this argument.

 

And please note that no one is advocating throwing gays in jail, or forcing them to undergo therapy.

 

Mark Morrow: You have added nothing to the discussion by comparing homosexuality to child molestation and rape. Care to go Full Santorum and add beastiality and incest?

 

I'm not Senator Santorum, and I don't care what he says, and I don't care if we never hear from him again.

 

Shall I attribute to you the quotes from gay activists who sneeringly call straights "breeders" or advocate decertifying therapists who offer to treat homosexuals? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Edited September 16, 2009 by grbeck

[grbeck]

Mark Morrow: You compared them as stemming from a common source i.e. biology or not biology.

 

I said the same thing about heterosexuality as well. Should heterosexuals therefore be offended, too?

 

Mark Morrow: You fail to concede that it is possible for homosexuality to be biological without the necessity for pedophilia and rape to be as well.

 

One can only concede a point where it has been proven incorrect, and that has not been done here by a long shot. And please note that pedophiles will talk of their desires, and how long they have had them, in the same way that homosexuals and heterosexuals do about theirs. Which is the "proof" that other posters offered as evidence that sexual desires and orientations are inborn for both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 

Mark Morrow: We don't accept biology as an excuse for crime. Whether these people can be treated does not necessarily require that we accept that they are biologically driven to commit these acts. A predilection towards alcoholism is considered to be hereditary and yet we don't excuse drunk drivers who kill people. The current opinion is that pedophiles are very hard to treat successfully. That doesn't mean none can be treated. Statistically they have a high rate of recitivism.

 

That is true, but that has nothing to do with whether sexuality is the result of nature or nurture.

Edited September 16, 2009 by grbeck

[grbeck]

Mark Morrow: What real world ramifications? It is a crime to rape just as it is a crime to murder or steal.

 

If the rapist or pedophile can't be cured, then we need to consider life in prison without parole as the appropriate punishment. Otherwise, upon release, they will go back to committing crimes. Currently, they do not receive life sentences, unless their crimes are especially egregious, or there are multiple offenses.

 

Mark Morrow: Again, your comparison fails because you are trying to liken consensual behavior between adults with crimes.

 

As I have said, whether it is a crime is irrelevant. What constitutes a crime has changed over time.

 

Mark Morrow: Once again you trivialize the difference. Being thrown in jail for acting on your sexual attraction with a like minded adult does not hurt or damage anyone else.

 

I never said it did. Please do not put words into my mouth.

[grbeck]

Mark Morrow: Your flip reaction to the loss of liberty "considering what occurs now in prisons" is surprising. It isn't like homosexuals would enjoy prison.

 

I never said that they would enjoy it; please stop putting words in my mouth. I meant it to show the futility of throwing people in jail for homosexual acts. If the goal of punishment is to prevent them from doing this, why send them to a place where is is just as likely to happen?

 

Incidentally, this same argument was used against anti-sodomy laws, so I doubt that is all that offensive to the gay community.

 

Mark Morrow: It wasn't that long ago that we still had laws on the books in this country against consensual sodomy and oral sex. See Bowers v. Hardwick (US Supreme Ct 1986) upholding Georgia's statute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick Bowers wasn't overruled until 2003 in Laurence v. Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas BTW if Scalia and Thomas had their way Bowers would still be the law.

 

I've already said that homosexual behavior was once illegal in this country (and other western countries), and the law changed. The majority of people in this country do not want homosexuals thrown into prison for committing consensual acts.

 

Mark Morrow: did not call you dumb. I have a very high respect for your intelligence. I did call your argument dumb because I believe that it is dumb. I call them as I see tham as do you. By the way, I have made dumb arguments too. Sometimes being called out on it has given me cause to reconsider my position and change it.

 

Thank you; I respect your arguments as well. I fully believe that if you could meet these men in real life, you would at least be open to their stories.

 

My argument is not dumb, however, it gets to the central core of people's view regarding the source of sexuality, and therefore raises a lot of uncomfortable questions. Calling it "dumb" is an attempt to dismiss it out of hand instead of addressing it.

[grbeck]

Mark Morrow: Rock Hudson dated lots of women. That didn't make him straight.

 

Rock Hudson didn't "date" women with the goal of becoming straight. He dated women, and married one, to hide his true sexuality, all at the suggestion of his agent. He didn't undergo therapy, and he had no intention of ever really changing. He didn't want to become heterosexual; he wanted to boost his career (or keep it from being derailed). Big difference. If you think that I'm saying that these men merely dated women until they clicked with one, or until their heterosexual desires came to the surface, that is not correct. Not by a long shot.

 

Mark Morrow: There are scientific studies going on trying to figure out what role biology may play in homosexuality. I don't know if we will ever have a definitive answer. Maybe God just makes some people Gay. That works for me just as well.

 

Then you have to consider that he makes some people as pedophiles and rapists as well.

 

Mark Morrow: I am perfectly tolerant of anyone who wants to live his or her life in any manner that suits them so long as they do not force others to join them. I don't have any need to judge them. Their story just can't be extrapolated to represent all Gay people.

 

Their story is offered as a valid counterpoint to the argument that sexuality is solely the result of biological factors.

 

I, for one, believe that everyone should live their lives the way that they want.

 

Interestingly, some gay activists beg to differ (not you or other posters), as they have advocated that therapists be driven out of professional associations or have their credentials taken away for merely offering this type of therapy.

 

Mark Morrow: Afterall, if it is just a choice of actions and conduct, there is no reason they can't be treated differently for their choices and no reason to allow them the same right as heterosexuals have.

 

And, turning that argument around, if it is biological in nature, then therapists who offer a different answer could be stripped of their credentials and driven out of their chosen career field. Which, as I have said, is what some gay activists have advocated.

 

Now, I don't believe that you are advocating that outcome.

 

But this only shows that worst-case scenarios can cut both ways. They don't necessarily prove the motivations of those offering an idea for consideration.

 

Mark Morrow: This brings me back to the offensiveness of you comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and rape.

 

I didn't compare it to pedophilia and rape; I said that all of them may have biological origins. Same with heterosexuality. Should straight people be offended, too?

 

Mark Morrow: I don't see you as having an open mind on this issue.

 

The current default position is that homosexuality is the result of biological factors, and people cannot change. I've brought up examples that cast doubt on this view. That seems like the open-minded position to me.

 

Mark Morrow: So why is it so important to you that it not be biological?

 

I will ask the a variation of that question - why is it important to you that it not be biological, or that these men have doubt cast upon their stories? I offered their stories; several posts have been spent either saying that they are outright liars, or that not all is what it seems on the surface. There are people overreacting, and it's not me.

 

Mark Morrow: And not all would be having gay sex once they are out. The prison anology doesn't work because of the lack of choices Gay sex or no sex. While not all proson sex is rape not all is consensual either. Not everyone who engages in gay sex has to be exclusively gay. There are those who consider themselves to be Bisexual. They find themselves attracted to either sex.

 

The prison analogy works because not everyone has to have sex. No one ever died from lack of sex, as they do from lack of food and water or adequate warmth.

 

Other posters posited that it would be impossible for a heterosexual person to have consensual sex with someone of the same sex (especially a man, who cannot merely be a passive receptor). This was offered as proof that no one can really change their orientation, so anyone who claims that they did was really straight all along.

 

The prison example shows that this is not necessarily true.