Ex-Gays

[NDP~]

Well, I know some people who are ex-gays. Meaning they were once homosexual and now they are not. Does this mean that today's ideology (that's what it is) of homosexuality being more or less "genetic" in nature and it CANNOT be changed is wrong?! I have done some research into this subject and there are many psychologists who agree that homosexuality is not innate and is something that can be changed. (whether it should be is for another discussion) It's interesting that special interest groups have imposed their views on society. It's interesting because if it is truly a choice and not innate (no genetic evidence to support it anyway) then why oh why are people accepting this as if it were like race or origin? Could this be the new "Catholicism"? In the old days, if you disagreed with the church, you were punished. You were a "heretic", "witch" or something or another. These days if you disagree with homosexuality you are viewed as "antiquated", "extreme", "small-minded" or stupid. It's quite interesting. Same old, same old? One ideology replaces another?

[Black Dog]

Well, I know some people who are ex-gays. Meaning they were once homosexual and now they are not.

Or so they tell you.

Does this mean that today's ideology (that's what it is) of homosexuality being more or less "genetic" in nature and it CANNOT be changed is wrong?!

Depends. I don't know if there's any consensus on how sexual orientation is determined. In any case, your framing of this issue puts sexuality in strictly bianary terms(gay/straighh: either/or). The reality is more complex.

It's interesting that special interest groups have imposed their views on society.

But enough about the National Citizens Coalition...

It's interesting because if it is truly a choice and not innate (no genetic evidence to support it anyway) then why oh why are people accepting this as if it were like race or origin?

So: is heterosexuality a choice?

Could this be the new "Catholicism"? In the old days, if you disagreed with the church, you were punished. You were a "heretic", "witch" or something or another. These days if you disagree with homosexuality you are viewed as "antiquated", "extreme", "small-minded" or stupid. It's quite interesting. Same old, same old? One ideology replaces another?

let's see: one is based on rigid adherence to a severe doctrine of self-denial, the other a live-and-let-live attitude that allows people to be themselves and not be discriminated against on teh basis of who they sleep with. I think I see a difference.

[Drea]

Well, I know some people who are ex-gays. Meaning they were once homosexual and now they are not. Does this mean that today's ideology (that's what it is) of homosexuality being more or less "genetic" in nature and it CANNOT be changed is wrong?! I have done some research into this subject and there are many psychologists who agree that homosexuality is not innate and is something that can be changed. (whether it should be is for another discussion) It's interesting that special interest groups have imposed their views on society. It's interesting because if it is truly a choice and not innate (no genetic evidence to support it anyway) then why oh why are people accepting this as if it were like race or origin? Could this be the new "Catholicism"? In the old days, if you disagreed with the church, you were punished. You were a "heretic", "witch" or something or another. These days if you disagree with homosexuality you are viewed as "antiquated", "extreme", "small-minded" or stupid. It's quite interesting. Same old, same old? One ideology replaces another?

IMO a person who is attracted to the same gender doesn't just "change", nor does a person who is attracted to the opposite gender just change one day.

If you are a man and men's butts turn you on how does one translate that into being turned on by a woman's butt?

A while back I saw these two beautiful young women all huggy and kissy and I thought to myself "they just think they are being cool -- they are not really gay". Gayness (at least between women) is considered "cool" among the young set these days. Not so with gay men. It's still very difficult for a young man (say in college) to be gay -- he is much more ostrasized than the female gay (men have always fantasized about woman on woman sex ).

I don't think anyone (cept those "cool" young women) would actually choose to be gay. It would be a very difficult life IMO.

[Renegade]

Well, I know some people who are ex-gays. Meaning they were once homosexual and now they are not. Does this mean that today's ideology (that's what it is) of homosexuality being more or less "genetic" in nature and it CANNOT be changed is wrong?! I have done some research into this subject and there are many psychologists who agree that homosexuality is not innate and is something that can be changed. (whether it should be is for another discussion) It's interesting that special interest groups have imposed their views on society. It's interesting because if it is truly a choice and not innate (no genetic evidence to support it anyway) then why oh why are people accepting this as if it were like race or origin? Could this be the new "Catholicism"? In the old days, if you disagreed with the church, you were punished. You were a "heretic", "witch" or something or another. These days if you disagree with homosexuality you are viewed as "antiquated", "extreme", "small-minded" or stupid. It's quite interesting. Same old, same old? One ideology replaces another?

The whole discussion on whether gays choose to be gay or it is an innate characteristic is absurd. The fact is it doesn't matter. People choose to be married, but should we discriminate based upon their marital status. People can choose their religion, should we discriminate based upon religious status?

It is completely irrelevant whether gays are gays are gay by choice or not, and the only people who make it an issue, are those who seek some basis to discrimminate.

[Liam]

There is no such condition as "ex Gay". It is not a choice. It is not a mutable condition. Someone cannot change his or her orientation through therapy, prayer or psychology/drug treatment. That's why you will frequently see stories about leaders of "ex gay" ministries being found in gay bars or trolling online for gay hookups six months after their "successful conversion". Please.

The only thing someone can change is his activity. I suspect that the "ex Gays" you know have just modified their external actions to conform to a hetero lifestyle but that deep down they are deeply unhappy at denying their true nature. I should know, I did it for years and am 100 times happier to be openly gay and honest with myself as to who I really am.

[BubberMiley]

Anyone who says being gay is a choice must actually be gay, because no true heterosexual could fathom making a decision to become attracted to the same sex. Their brains just aren't wired that way.

[geoffrey]

Chances are they were just pretending to be gay for a popularity thing. These types of people I have encountered. Either that or they just are saying they are 'ex-gay' for whatever purpose now.

I'm convinced that homosexuality is merely a genetic defect. Score one for the left's influence on me.

There is really no need for political discussion on the causes of homosexuality, that's best left for a bio classroom.

The government's involvment in relgious institutions, Supreme Court judgements forcing views on religious groups... things like this are discussable... I am not in favour of same-sex marriage (actually, I take a libertarian view on this, I'm not against it either, just there should be no marriage law).

If gays are genetic or chose to be gay I don't see the difference. They should have the same rights as the rest of us either way. Even the Catholic Church says we should love these people like brothers, no need to hate anyone ever.

--

Sort of a related question. Do we need gay bathrooms? Or should male gay's use the female facilities? This is an interesting conumdrum.

[Black Dog]

Sort of a related question. Do we need gay bathrooms? Or should male gay's use the female facilities? This is an interesting conumdrum.

Uh...why?

[geoffrey]

Sort of a related question. Do we need gay bathrooms? Or should male gay's use the female facilities? This is an interesting conumdrum.

Uh...why?

Well why do we have male/female bathrooms? Because some females would feel uncomfortable with a guy in the bathroom next to them? Why? Can't a guy not feel the same way, threated by someone sexually attracted to them watching them take a leak.

[BubberMiley]

Can't a guy not feel the same way, threated by someone sexually attracted to them watching them take a leak.

Has this been a problem for you?

[Black Dog]

Well why do we have male/female bathrooms? Because some females would feel uncomfortable with a guy in the bathroom next to them? Why? Can't a guy not feel the same way, threated by someone sexually attracted to them watching them take a leak.

What, you think homosexuals are so sex-crazed that just being in proximity to the exposed genitalia of someone is going to drive them into a frenzy of lust? Or do you figure gays are just a bunch of piss freaks (cue Ashley MacIssac joke in 5....4....3...).). I'm also kind of curious how you would know if the guy pissing next to you is gay. This kinda reminds me of the passively homophobic straight dude rationale that goes something like "I have no problem with gays as long as they don't hit on me", to which my usual rebuttal is "Dude, they're gay, not blind."

[geoffrey]

Well why do we have male/female bathrooms? Because some females would feel uncomfortable with a guy in the bathroom next to them? Why? Can't a guy not feel the same way, threated by someone sexually attracted to them watching them take a leak.

What, you think homosexuals are so sex-crazed that just being in proximity to the exposed genitalia of someone is going to drive them into a frenzy of lust? Or do you figure gays are just a bunch of piss freaks (cue Ashley MacIssac joke in 5....4....3...).). I'm also kind of curious how you would know if the guy pissing next to you is gay. This kinda reminds me of the passively homophobic straight dude rationale that goes something like "I have no problem with gays as long as they don't hit on me", to which my usual rebuttal is "Dude, they're gay, not blind."

Oh no, thats not what I'm saying at all. It's not an attack on gay people whatsoever.

I don't think they are all sex-crazed lustful freaks.

But using your justification, shouldn't we just scrap the double cost of making male and female washrooms? What's the big deal, no one will go into some frenzy of lust right?

There must be some reason to have gender specific washrooms. And I feel its mostly centered around the uncomfortable feeling most would have taking a pee next to someone that needs to take a quick peek.

---

Bubber,

I don't know if this has been a problem. I just generally get freaked out at those people that decide its good to talk to you while taking a leak at the bar. We should have a different set of facilities for people that too.

[Black Dog]

But using your justification, shouldn't we just scrap the double cost of making male and female washrooms? What's the big deal, no one will go into some frenzy of lust right?

There must be some reason to have gender specific washrooms. And I feel its mostly centered around the uncomfortable feeling most would have taking a pee next to someone that needs to take a quick peek.

That and the fact that male and female standards of bathroom hygeine are quite different. There are unisex bathrooms out there, though. Dunno how well they work. But really, back to the gay bathroom thing gay people have been around at least as long as bathrooms and I don't think it's been a problem (cue George Michael joke in 5....4....3...). Personally I don't like peeing next to anyone, gay or straight.

I don't know if this has been a problem. I just generally get freaked out at those people that decide its good to talk to you while taking a leak at the bar. We should have a different set of facilities for people that too

That I'll agree with. Interestingly enough, though, it seems the more aggressivly hetro the bar's clientele, the more likely one is to endure a urinal tete a tete. Maybe some see it as a camradarie thing, like so many other hyper masculine endevours that skirt the line with homoeroticism....

[Leafless]

Renegade

You wrote- " It is completley irrelevant whether gays are gay by chance or not, and the only people who make it an issue, are those who seek some basis to discrimate."

There as always been some sort self rightous ackowledgement of any majority in society to automatically discriminate on almost kind of any minority or to treat them with indifference.

In this case it's a sexual issue heterosexuals vs. gays.

But even if you were to admit you live a life of celibacy you would be frowned on by most heterosexuals and probably treated indifferently, probably as well as by gays as a celibate is totally out of the sexual equation.

This proves discrimination is a normal fact of life concerning all races and different situations and is not only directed against gays.

But back to ex-gays.

We have a male family relative who is gay but for some reason turned straight and actually married a women.

But three weeks after the marriage it was over already.

I never did find out from this guy personally what was up but rumour has it he could not consummate his marriage and that's what ended it.

This provides a small amount of proff that gays are 'wired different' but maybe this guy had some type of emotional problem initially.

[geoffrey]

But using your justification, shouldn't we just scrap the double cost of making male and female washrooms? What's the big deal, no one will go into some frenzy of lust right?

There must be some reason to have gender specific washrooms. And I feel its mostly centered around the uncomfortable feeling most would have taking a pee next to someone that needs to take a quick peek.

That and the fact that male and female standards of bathroom hygeine are quite different. There are unisex bathrooms out there, though. Dunno how well they work. But really, back to the gay bathroom thing gay people have been around at least as long as bathrooms and I don't think it's been a problem (cue George Michael joke in 5....4....3...). Personally I don't like peeing next to anyone, gay or straight.

Good point, I concede.

I don't know if this has been a problem. I just generally get freaked out at those people that decide its good to talk to you while taking a leak at the bar. We should have a different set of facilities for people that too

That I'll agree with. Interestingly enough, though, it seems the more aggressivly hetro the bar's clientele, the more likely one is to endure a urinal tete a tete. Maybe some see it as a camradarie thing, like so many other hyper masculine endevours that skirt the line with homoeroticism....

Ass slapping in baseball/football? The big hugs in hockey? All these hyper masculine endevours are questionable. Maybe gays are just super hyper masculine?

[Renegade]

There as always been some sort self rightous ackowledgement of any majority in society to automatically discriminate on almost kind of any minority or to treat them with indifference.

This proves discrimination is a normal fact of life concerning all races and different situations and is not only directed against gays.

Leafless, what is your point here? That discrimmination is a normal part of the behaviour of the majority and that they discriminate agains all kinds of groups so we should tolerate that discrimmination?

[Black Dog]

Ass slapping in baseball/football? The big hugs in hockey? All these hyper masculine endevours are questionable. Maybe gays are just super hyper masculine?

How about the ultimate in hetero male institutions: the strip club. Think about it: yeah, you're looking at women, but when it comes right down to it, you're in a room with a bunch of other dudes. And chances are, they all have boners. It's a slippery slope, my friend...

[geoffrey]

Ass slapping in baseball/football? The big hugs in hockey? All these hyper masculine endevours are questionable. Maybe gays are just super hyper masculine?

How about the ultimate in hetero male institutions: the strip club. Think about it: yeah, you're looking at women, but when it comes right down to it, you're in a room with a bunch of other dudes. And chances are, they all have boners. It's a slippery slope, my friend...

I've always had that understanding about strippers clubs, hence my non-attendance.

Very interesting observations indeed.

[Leafless]

Renagade

You wrote- " What is your point here? That discrimination is a normal part of the majority and that they discriminate against all kinds of groups so we should tolerate that discrimination."

Normally discrimination is viewed as unfavourable treatment based on prejudice esp. regarding race, colour or sex but not necessarily confined to those three.

In the example I gave heterosexuals and homosexuals could be viewed as being biased or against in some way against people who are celibate.

In other words homosexuals could be guilty of the same discrimination they say they are victim of from heterosexuals by discriminating against celibates.

I think this kind of group discrimination is a left over from prehistoric man when they depended on direct groups for survival and still dominates the mind to-day.

Back to the question- So should we tolerate that discrimination.

And I say to that unless it directly breaks the law involving some sort of criminal offense there is not much you can do about it since ALL MINORTIES are affected similarly by different forms of discrimation, even majorities are affected by all types of discrimination.

But what homosexuals did about it was invent and pursue their own legal laws so to speak, like for instance the right of two members of the same sex to be married and subsequently the outright difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals was totally ignored in favour of the legal aspect.

If all minorties pursued rights in a similar fashion to isolate their indifferences from other groups society could grind to a halt.

I am contradicting what you said "It is completely irrelevant whether gays are gays by choice or not and the only people who make it an issue are those who seek some basis to discriminate."

What I am saying is that it is relevant as gays have capitilized in the manner that they are now in the positon to do what they have accused heterosexuals of doing to them to other groups as being a more powerful group themselves.

All your doing by fighting existing discrimination is propagating the seeds for further, new forms of discrimination.

[Renegade]

Normally discrimination is viewed as unfavourable treatment based on prejudice esp. regarding race, colour or sex but not necessarily confined to those three.

In the example I gave heterosexuals and homosexuals could be viewed as being biased or against in some way against people who are celibate.

In other words homosexuals could be guilty of the same discrimination they say they are victim of from heterosexuals by discriminating against celibates.

Huh? You showed that homosexuals have discriminated against people who are celibate? You have done no such thing. Show me some evidence where gays have pervasive discrimination against people who are celibate. Cite some newstories, show some statistics. Something besides your say so.

Back to the question- So should we tolerate that discrimination.

And I say to that unless it directly breaks the law involving some sort of criminal offense there is not much you can do about it since ALL MINORTIES are affected similarly by different forms of discrimation, even majorities are affected by all types of discrimination.

I agee with you here.

But what homosexuals did about it was invent and pursue their own legal laws so to speak, like for instance the right of two members of the same sex to be married and subsequently the outright difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals was totally ignored in favour of the legal aspect.

How do you go about concluding this? Do you think that the Supreme Court of Canada was somehow inflitrated by gays who did so to persue their own interest. I agree that gays lobbied aginst legislation which they though discrimminatory against them. Did you expect any different? Do you expect any group who is being discriminated against in law not to protest that discrimination.

If all minorties pursued rights in a similar fashion to isolate their indifferences from other groups society could grind to a halt.

It may be your phrasing here but I havent' a clue on what you are trying to say in this statement. What does "isolate their indifferences" mean?

I am contradicting what you said "It is completely irrelevant whether gays are gays by choice or not and the only people who make it an issue are those who seek some basis to discriminate."

What I am saying is that it is relevant as gays have capitilized in the manner that they are now in the positon to do what they have accused heterosexuals of doing to them to other groups as being a more powerful group themselves.

None of what you have stated, refutes my statement that whether gays are gay by choice or nature is irrelevant to the fact that they shouldn't be discrimminated aginst.

I will accept that some gays will discrimminate, just as I accept that some whites will discriminate, just as I accept that some blacks will discrimminate. But this doesn't mean we should tolerate discrimmination from any of those groups, and we should fight it in every case, especially when it becomes instutionalized in law.

All your doing by fighting existing discrimination is propagating the seeds for further, new forms of discrimination.

Absolutely false. It is impossible to completely stamp out discrimmination, however it should be fought in all its forms in order to be contained. Permiiting existing discrimmination only justifies retatialitory discrimmination leading to a more confrontational and divisive society.

[NDP~]

There is no such condition as "ex Gay". It is not a choice. It is not a mutable condition. Someone cannot change his or her orientation through therapy, prayer or psychology/drug treatment. That's why you will frequently see stories about leaders of "ex gay" ministries being found in gay bars or trolling online for gay hookups six months after their "successful conversion". Please.

The only thing someone can change is his activity. I suspect that the "ex Gays" you know have just modified their external actions to conform to a hetero lifestyle but that deep down they are deeply unhappy at denying their true nature. I should know, I did it for years and am 100 times happier to be openly gay and honest with myself as to who I really am.

Wow. All I can say is I'm shocked. You are saying there is no such thing as an ex-gay. Only because you feel there was no such thing in your case. You are using a sense of what you feel instead of real intellictual reason. You are assuming just because you seem to be unable to turn away from your homosexuality, ALL homosexuals are locked-in to the same fate. So, if I was into beastilaity and all society said it was OK, that means I was born like this and there's no way around it? (this is an example) Don't you see, 100 years ago this open-gayness was less present. (yes, I know there were homosexuals then too) This was due to social circumstances of the time. It was illegal and viewed as innately corrupt. Now, in today's society, it is much more accepted. Thus we see many more homosexuals in open (and perhaps more than ever) The ex-gays I know are NO longer homosexual. They are married with children. I find it insulting that you believe you have the right to speak for them and assume they weren't homosexual to begin with. I can assure you they were and have chosen to leave that lifestyle.

IMO a person who is attracted to the same gender doesn't just "change", nor does a person who is attracted to the opposite gender just change one day.

If you are a man and men's butts turn you on how does one translate that into being turned on by a woman's butt?

A while back I saw these two beautiful young women all huggy and kissy and I thought to myself "they just think they are being cool -- they are not really gay". Gayness (at least between women) is considered "cool" among the young set these days. Not so with gay men. It's still very difficult for a young man (say in college) to be gay -- he is much more ostrasized than the female gay (men have always fantasized about woman on woman sex ).

I don't think anyone (cept those "cool" young women) would actually choose to be gay. It would be a very difficult life IMO.

The whole being a lesbian is kewl and being a homosexual (male) is not kewl is a social construct that's simply sad.

The whole discussion on whether gays choose to be gay or it is an innate characteristic is absurd. The fact is it doesn't matter. People choose to be married, but should we discriminate based upon their marital status. People can choose their religion, should we discriminate based upon religious status?

It is completely irrelevant whether gays are gays are gay by choice or not, and the only people who make it an issue, are those who seek some basis to discrimminate.

When did I say homosexuals should be "discriminated" against? How is actual discussion of homosexuality absurd? Please, take your bag of rhetoric somewhere else. You are foolish to assume that people who are curious of the origin of homosexuality are seeking some basis to discriminate. Please stop this view that all that disagree with homosexuality are some sort of discriminators. It's stupid.

Anyone who says being gay is a choice must actually be gay, because no true heterosexual could fathom making a decision to become attracted to the same sex. Their brains just aren't wired that way.

You are making an assumption. There is no evidence to support that homosexual's brains are "wired" differently. You know what they say, don't swallow everything some people throw at you. It's important to be critical and investigate and not submit to brainwashing.

Chances are they were just pretending to be gay for a popularity thing. These types of people I have encountered. Either that or they just are saying they are 'ex-gay' for whatever purpose now.

I'm convinced that homosexuality is merely a genetic defect. Score one for the left's influence on me.

There is really no need for political discussion on the causes of homosexuality, that's best left for a bio classroom.

The government's involvment in relgious institutions, Supreme Court judgements forcing views on religious groups... things like this are discussable... I am not in favour of same-sex marriage (actually, I take a libertarian view on this, I'm not against it either, just there should be no marriage law).

If gays are genetic or chose to be gay I don't see the difference. They should have the same rights as the rest of us either way. Even the Catholic Church says we should love these people like brothers, no need to hate anyone ever.

Sort of a related question. Do we need gay bathrooms? Or should male gay's use the female facilities? This is an interesting conumdrum.

Once again you are making an assumption on homosexual motives. Yes, I know some people do do it for popular reasons. I am far from convinced that it is genetic (though I am open to this possibility if it does emerge) It's interesting that 50 years ago, homosexuality was illegal and viewed with scorn. Now, people imbrace it. What the Catholic Church says is irrelevant, and all persons, criminals, white, Jews, Muslims, etc should be treated like brothers since (using the Bible now) we are not judges, God is.

The bathroom thing is silly. Good joke though!

How about the ultimate in hetero male institutions: the strip club. Think about it: yeah, you're looking at women, but when it comes right down to it, you're in a room with a bunch of other dudes. And chances are, they all have boners. It's a slippery slope, my friend...

I find Strip Clubs to be absolutely appauling. It's completely disrespectful toward women.

Please people we're not talking about "discrimination". Let's keep the "same old, same old" out of here. We're talking about if homosexuality is innate or not. And the complete lack of mention or support for ex-gays in our society. We even have people denying their existance! Come on people. Stop thinking so rigidly and open your mind to the other side of the issue at hand.

[Renegade]

When did I say homosexuals should be "discriminated" against?

I never accused you of stating that homosexuals should be discrimminated against.

How is actual discussion of homosexuality absurd? Please, take your bag of rhetoric somewhere else. You are foolish to assume that people who are curious of the origin of homosexuality are seeking some basis to discriminate. Please stop this view that all that disagree with homosexuality are some sort of discriminators. It's stupid.

I apologize for my choice of phrasing. I did not mean that the discussion is absurd. It is valid to discuss the origins of homosexuality as it is the origins of hetrosexuality. Also, I don't believe that a discussion of homosexuality implies that it is done on the basis to discrimminate. My reaction was based upon the multitude of use the "choice" vs nature as the baiss to somehow justify discrimmination. As that is not the nature of this thread, I aplogize for my jumping to conclusions.

[Riverwind]

You are making an assumption. There is no evidence to support that homosexual's brains are "wired" differently. You know what they say, don't swallow everything some people throw at you. It's important to be critical and investigate and not submit to brainwashing.

Homosexuality exists amoung animals too - that is pretty convincing evidence that homsexuality does have a genetic component. (see link). However, I would not say genetics is the only factor.

[betsy]

Well, I know some people who are ex-gays. Meaning they were once homosexual and now they are not.

I've got two friends in university who were gay. One was really blatantly and flamboyantly gay (he loved getting attention too)...while the other was open about it, feminine in his mannerismsbut more reserved compared to the other.

The reserved one surprised us all when he suddenly got married to a woman (whom we also know). He dropped all gay mannerisms and acted and sounded like a real man. However, after a few years, I heard that he went back to being gay again.

The flamboyant one (the last time I heard) was suddenly macho.

I don't know if REAL gays can really change. I think with these two, they seem confused....and fighting it, or tried to.

[newbie]

It's a slippery slope, my friend...

Or slippery pole