Friday, May 29, 2009 10:41
Change you can believe in? (part four)
In Main Stories, Uncategorized • 1,938 views • 66 Comments
Photo: A church service at City Harvest Church. Most Christians in Singapore are adament that homosexuality is a condition that is changeable. Courtesy of Liu Kam Kit / Creative Commons
Terence Lee / Deputy Editor
In this four-part series, the writer explores the idea of conversion therapy and the notion that Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered (LGBT) people can change, if they choose to do so.
Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Clarification |
While many gay Christians may at have, at one point of time or another, tried to change their sexual orientation, others have no such desire. In fact, these people, many of whom are non-religious, may be in the majority.
Mr Ow estimates that at any one time there would be about 40-50 individuals going through therapy at Choices, which is a drop in the ocean compared to the size of the LGBT community in Singapore.
A survey done in New York City finds that 4.9% of men identify themselves as gay or bisexual. If applied to the Singapore context, this would add up to a figure of 120,000. This figure, however, remains a rough estimate as no concrete research has been done on this topic in Singapore.
An example would be Steven (not his real name), a social worker in his late thirties, who is a self-described “gay Catholic.”
While he joined Choices in 1995, he did not go in there wanting to be changed. Rather, he was more interested in making gay friends and finding out what the ministry had to say.
Till this day, he finds nothing wrong with his homosexual behaviour, believing that the Bible was written at a certain time for a certain people.
Furthermore, he also feels that the gay debate has been blown out of proportion, as there are more pressing issues out there to talk about rather than labeling “who’s gay and who’s not.”
It would be better to talk about the misuse of sex, he says, such as how sex has become a bargaining tool in relationships. He also feels that people should also learn how to negotiate and say ‘no’ to sex.
It is more practical to focus on these things, which are more useful, than zero in on homosexuality.
He chooses to adapt a live and let live attitude — while Choices did not work for him, he sees no harm in having such therapies around.
“If somebody really wants to go through it, why not? I mean, if you’re really meant to gay, you will be gay. While such programmes may not work for me, they may work for other people,” he says.
However, he does not see conversion therapy as the best solution. He calls it the “lesser of two evils”, because it is the better than sending a gay person to a pastor for exorcism or prayer, for example.
Alternative choices to conversion therapy
Agreeing with Steven is Ms Susan Tang, chairperson of the counsel at FCC, who advocates a “gay-affirmative” stance in her church.
She suspects that those who underwent therapy and converted are not genuinely gay in the first place. Ms Tang also finds it impossible to love the homosexual but hate homosexuality.
“You are your sexuality, how can you divorce the two? It just doesn’t make sense to me,” she says.
Furthermore, she has seen many lives changed once they started accepting their sexuality. She recalls a girl who when she first visited the church, wore a baseball cap that was tilted down.
“You couldn’t see her face, and she’s always looking down and hunched over. Today she’s a different person. She stands up tall, her cap is off, she is up on the pulpit and preaching, and she runs a woman’s group — all this is only a matter of four years!”
While Ms Tang says that gays should embrace their sexuality, she does not believe in promiscuity, but “loving, monogamous” homosexual relationships.
The Catholic Church also takes a slightly different view from the mainstream Protestant churches in Singapore, although it may be difficult to recognise the nuance at first glance.
While they view homosexuality as a “disorder of nature”, the Catholic Church does not advocate conversion therapy, says Mr Andrew Kong, a trainer for Family Life Society, a counseling and care service centre affiliated with the Church.
“We prefer to advocate chastity,” he says, “but we do think it is possible for homosexuals to change.”
A check with the Catechism of the Catholic Church reveals no mention of conversion therapy. Instead, it commands that “homosexual persons are called to chastity,” to abstain from sexual acts outside the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman.
A matter of religious belief
While not a Catholic, chastity is the position Mr Lung is adopting as well. He also remains steadfast in his conviction that LGBT people can change their sexual orientation, countering criticisms that “converted” LGBTs are not truly happy.
“I am at peace with myself, as far as I’m concerned. Am I unhappy that I have to struggle? Who isn’t? We all have our own struggles, and I wish I don’t need to struggle with my sexual desires,” he says.
Nevertheless, he sees it as a normal part of his life. It is “a cross to carry,” as he would put it.
He also adds that based on his experience, many “ex-ex gays” actually come back to the Liberty League. While they may have initially “decided” to embrace their sexual identity, it is often not final.
They return either because of their religious conviction, or because they are unhappy with their lifestyle. Mr Lung believes that their basic lack of intimacy is not met.
“They have sex, but they still feel empty and disconnected,” he says.
He does concede, however, that there are gays who in loving monogamous relationships and are happy with their lifestyle. In fact, some of them are his friends.
“It is their personal decision, who is anybody to criticise? I may not approve of their lifestyle, but they are still my buddies,” he says.
Mr Lung is one of the rare few who, having embraced change, became quite successful at it. For most other LGBT people however, change is unnecessary, even repulsive.
Ironic as it is, whether a gay can change is a matter of choice. But even among the religiously fervent, you have your dissenters – those who tried but failed.
Success, it seems, is dependent on how change is defined. For mainline Protestant and Catholic churches, the holy grail of the ex-gay movement – heterosexual marriage – remains a possibility. But very few attain it.
For those who fail to transform, chastity is encouraged, and this practice seems to have a greater success rate.
Then again, there are those who fall through the cracks – they complete the programme, date a girl, but the thought of intimacy still scares them. Their gayness becomes a cross to carry, a heavy burden which some bear with for the rest of their lives.
Some, finding the price too high to pay, abandon the cross.
Is this liberation or destruction? The answer to that question, ultimately, boils down to your religious conviction.
End of Part Four. This article concludes the series.
Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Clarification |
Related posts:
66 Comments
Arix
smallvice585
This is not the Christian view because it is not endorsed by any senior clergymen.. In fact, this only the view of a Christian author.
I, for one, never believe in the gay is inborn stuff. I see gay as a sexual preference. Difference people have different preferences and tastes – just like some people prefer meat to vegetables.
What the heck, typo – Should be “Different people have….” and not “Difference people have…”
For a succinct summary of what science has to say on whether homosexuals can change, do take a look at Professor Mark Featherstone’s (of NTU school of biological science) blog.
http://consideritopinion.blogspot.com/2009/05/queer-science.html
KT
so, are people free to prefer meat to vegetables, or vice versa, or must everyone prefer meat and not vegetables?
Ahgong
Meat also got many type leh, pork, mutton, beef, chicken, fish. Muslim can not eat pork, some hindus can not eat beef, some chinese can not eat beef, some are vegetarian.
Vegetarian also got many, some can take eggs, some can not take garlic, spices, spring onions.
Alan Wong
Going by Solo Bear’s logic, then gays should continue with their preferences as there is really nothing wrong with their individual choice of preference unless Solo Bear can prove that Solo Bear’s individual welfare is affected by other people’s choice of meat or vegetable.
If other people’s preference does not absolutely affect you the least bit, then does it not make logical sense that you should leave them alone to continue with their preference of choice.
David
I think we should stop arguing that homosexual is a choice, a preference or trend, such statements carry no scientific evidence at all. We should learn to accept the fact the the world is not made perfect for you guys, there are variances by nature or in-borned which you guys can argue for the next 1000 years and nothing will change the way it should be.
Have you all forgot the message from MCYS: These guys are also as beautifully imperfect as any of the heterosexual here. On that note, it is also their imperfection that made straights people perfect. Thus, live and lets live without trying to hurt another innocent feelings because there may comes a day where all of us may need each other and stand together again in the face of adversity when god is nowhere in sight.
I rest my case on the conclusion of this part 4 topic.
KT
>>so, are people free to prefer meat to vegetables, or vice versa, or must everyone prefer meat and not vegetables?
>>
Anyone can eat what they prefer. But it is wrong for vegans to force their values on meat eaters.
Just like anyone can choose to be gay. But it is wrong for gays to force their values on others.
Ahgong
>>Vegetarian also got many, some can take eggs, some can not take garlic, spices, spring onions.
>>
Likewise gays and lesbians have many types. Effeminate, masculine, transexuals, butch etc.
David
>>I think we should stop arguing that homosexual is a choice, a preference or trend, such statements carry no scientific evidence at all.
>>
Why should we stop? There is no evidence of a gay gene either, yet gays talk as if gay is inborn.
>>We should learn to accept the fact the the world is not made perfect for you guys, there are variances by nature or in-borned which you guys can argue for the next 1000 years and nothing will change the way it should be.
>>
If you want to say that gay is abnormal, I have no objection.
>> Thus, live and lets live without trying to hurt another innocent feelings because there may comes a day where all of us may need each other and stand together again in the face of adversity when god is nowhere in sight.
>>
I agree. That’s why I say gays have their space in society. But they should not go overboard by encroaching into parents’ rights by teaching children about homosexuality.
KT
@Solo Bear: then is it also wrong for Christians to force their values on homosexuals?
SB
@KT
Not only some Christians forcing their values on homosexuals; but actively push to keep homosexuals as criminals in Singapore. Isn’t that a worse travesty?
fearandignorance
Then you must tell me how do you identify the Gays/Lesbian from the heterosexuals in order to validate your fact that the meeting was dominated by gays.
theonlinecitizen
To solo bear and fearandignorance,
The article is not about Aware’s CSE programme or the recent Aware EGM.
Thus, your comments are disallowed.
theonlinecitizen
Solo bear,
Pls stop posting url links to your blog in almost everyone of your comments.
You can link your blog to your nickname.
theonlinecitizen
morris,
Your comment is more than 1,000 words long and is thus disallowed.
Pls keep your comments to within 500 words.
Thanks.
Fearandignorance and others,
Let’s just drop the topic then, since mod has hinted that he does not want “unrelated issues”. If you wish to continue, you may dirty my site and keep this site clean. I don’t moderate.
Online citizen,
If you disallow links, I will not put it up anymore. I just wanted to highlight a particular post I made in my blog and not my blog itself. But even if that is not allowed, I will respect it. This is your site.
morris
Solo bear,
I thank you for a number of important points you’ve raised. Although the things you say are not exactly new, it’s always good that we can discuss them again and again.
(1) Anyone can eat what they prefer. But it is wrong for vegans to force their values on meat eaters. Just like anyone can choose to be gay.
It is not true that “anyone” can choose to be gay, if by gay, you are referring to a type of sexual orientation.
I can’t choose to be gay. Heterosexuals can’t choose to be gay. We can’t choose who we are attracted to sexually. I’m sure you know that from your own experiences.
Think carefully and ask yourself: can you choose who you want to be attracted to and who you don’t? Can you choose to be sexually attracted to a tree simply because you want to?
But yes, you are right if you think we can choose who (or even what) we have sex with. Obviously, if I choose, I can have sex with a tree tonight. Whether I really enjoy the tree sex is a totally different matter.
Straight people can decide to have gay sex under some very special circumstances, for instance, when money is involved, such as in the case of prostitution.
But there won’t be any sexual enjoyment, and the gay sex will end the moment the incentive is withdrawn.
The “pleasure principle” applies. As humans, we naturally seek out activities which bring us pleasure; the greater the potential for pleasure, the more urgently we seek out the particular activity.
Gay sex is not pleasurable to true heterosexuals. Similarly straight sex is not pleasurable to gays.
morris
(2) But it is wrong for gays to force their values on others.
Solo bear, I agree with you. It’s wrong for anyone – and not just gays – to force their beliefs on others.
Can you tell us specifically in what ways have gays “forced” their values on others?
Have the gays told us that our hetersexuality is wrong and demanded that we should change? Have the gays insisted that we should teach homosexuality to our children to the exclusion of heterosexuality? Have the gays set up “conversion therapy” programmes for those heterosexuals who are unhappy in their relationships?
On the other hand, we have all seen a small but very vocal group of people who have become very self-righteous and intolerant of others, and who have tried to “force” their religious beliefs and lifestyles on others, such as by insisting that everybody accepts that a certain group of Singaporeans should be labelled as “abnormal” and that every child should be taught that “homosexuality is negative” in school sex education courses.
There are also people who have protested against GP teachers discussing certain topics because those topics clash with their religious “values”.
There are people who have demanded that our laws be written in accordance with their personal religious or “moral” beliefs, as in the S377A issue.
And there are people who have been harassing our school children outside their schools for days trying to “convert” them to a particular religion.
I would think they are the really dangerous ones “forcing” their values on others, and such people sometimes do not hesitate to resort to questionable means to achieve their goals.
If what you’re worried about is that gays will force their “sexual orientation” on young children, you can rest assured it’s not going to happen.
Sexual orientation is innate, in the same way that our eye colour is innate. I will never have to worry that a blue-eyed caucasian will be able to “force” his eye-colour on my brown-eyed children.
morris
(3) Likewise gays and lesbians have many types. Effeminate, masculine, transexuals, butch etc.
You’re quite right again, and I’m glad that we’re growing out of those “gay and lesbian stereotypes” which many of us used to believe in.
So yes, the gay and lesbian population is highly diverse, in the same way that the straight population is diverse. You will be pleased to know that we have effeminate and masculine heterosexual men and women too.
But our textbooks will disagree with you lumping our transsexual friends together with the gays and lesbians. The two groups are as different as oranges and apples, although it is very important for us to remember that like us, they are all human beings.
morris
(4) There is no evidence of a gay gene either, yet gays talk as if gay is inborn.
You are absolutely right again. There is no single gene which has been identified as the gay gene. And you will be very happy to know that none will ever be discovered.
But the non-existence of a gay gene does not imply that homosexuality is “not inborn”.
To understand why, you will need some elementary knowledge of genetics, which I will not go into here.
Solo bear, may I ask if you agree with me that certain things like the musical talent of Mozart, the genius of Albert Einstein, and the artistic talent of Vincent van Gogh are largely “inborn”?
Or do you actually believe that just anyone can “choose” to be a Mozart, an Einstein or a Vincent van Gogh anytime he wants to?
Now can you tell me whether a “genius” gene, a “musical talent” gene or a “artistic talent” gene exists?
If a “genius” gene does not exist, does it mean having Einstenian intelligence is not inborn but a “lifestyle choice”?
I hope you understand what I mean. The “gay gene” is a straw-man argument used by Fundamentalist Christians to “prove” that homosexuality is the “lifestyle choice” of a group of perverted “heterosexuals” with defective moral judgement.
morris
(5) That’s why I say gays have their space in society. But they should not go overboard by encroaching into parents’ rights by teaching children about homosexuality.
Which group of parents are we talking about? I don’t think “parents” are as homogenous a group as some “concerned parents” of a particular religion would have us believe.
I agree with you that we shouldn’t JUST be teaching our children about homosexuality (or heterosexuality, for that matter).
We should be teaching our children to be respectful, sensitive and tolerant of those who do not happen to be exactly like themselves.
I shall be very upset if my child is gay or lesbian, and his/her teacher tells the entire class that gays are sick, bad and abnormal people. How would my child feel?
This is the same reason why I will feel upset if my child’s teacher tells the class that people of a particular race, or gender, or religion are “bad”, especially if my child happens to be of that race, gender or religion.
Now wouldn’t you feel upset too, if that happened to your child, solo bear?
Nobody will tell a straight child that he is “no good” because of his sexuality. Why hurt a gay child then?
Solo bear, I will be very concerned if ideas of prejudice and discrimination, of hate and intolerance, of misinformation and myths are taught to my children, and so would many parents who want their children to grow up in an inclusive and tolerant society rather than a polarized and divided one full of tension.
I hope you understand how we feel, because we are parents (and parents-to-be) too.
theonlinecitizen
Solo Bear,
Links are fine but not in almost every comment posted. If you want commenters to engage you in your blog instead, that is also fine. Just make an announcement in your comments.
Otherwise, just reply to the other comments which are posted here. There’s no need to refer commenters to your blog ever so often.
Thanks.
morris
Apologies for the lengthy post, I have tried to break it up into different parts, if that’s allowed.
fearandignorance
sorry for the outburst
i am offended by some lies that continue to be repeated.
there is always talks on change from homosexual to heterosexual.
have there been any paper on conversion therapy from heterosexual to homosexual or any clinic in gay affirmative society that does such conversion therapy.
I believe most gays believe that change to heterosexual is impossible and no sane gay/pro gay have done any research on such a conversion therapy.
morris
>> We can’t choose who we are attracted to sexually.
>>
Likewise, we can’t choose to love eating veggies if we don’t like it. It’s still a preference, isn’t it?
>> Can you tell us specifically in what ways have gays “forced” their values on others?
>>
When fence-sitters do not support the call for the repealing of S377A, they are called bigots. When parents insist that they have the last say what to teach their children, gays claim that parents teach their children to discriminate gays.
>> But our textbooks will disagree with you lumping our transsexual friends together with the gays and lesbians. The two groups are as different as oranges and apples, although it is very important for us to remember that like us, they are all human beings.
>>
Why would you not accept them as part of the domain? It amazes me how gays and lesbians cry foul and disrimination, only to discriminate transsexuals themselves.
>> But the non-existence of a gay gene does not imply that homosexuality is “not inborn”.
>>
That is contradictory. If not for genes, then what you are is shaped by environment and/or choice, no?
>> the musical talent of Mozart, the genius of Albert Einstein, and the artistic talent of Vincent van Gogh are largely “inborn”?
>>
How does that prove that gay is inborn or not? I can loosely say that if Mozart’s skill was inborn, so is the skill of the Jack the Ripper.
>> Which group of parents are we talking about? I don’t think “parents” are as homogenous a group as some “concerned parents” of a particular religion would have us believe.
>>
I am talking about the 7000+ parents who signed an online petition to MOE to stop Aware’s CSE.
>> This is the same reason why I will feel upset if my child’s teacher tells the class that people of a particular race, or gender, or religion are “bad”, especially if my child happens to be of that race, gender or religion.
>>
Who’s teaching to discriminate? You mean teachers go round telling kids to discriminate?
>> I will be very concerned if ideas of prejudice and discrimination, of hate and intolerance, of misinformation and myths are taught to my children,
>>
Again, who is teaching kids to discriminate?
>> I hope you understand how we feel, because we are parents (and parents-to-be) too.
>>
My advice to parents and parents to be is that if you truly do not wish your children to grow up as gays, you shouldn’t be supporting the gay cause. That’s because if your children see you support gays, they may take that as a hint that you endorse their choice to be gays when they grow up.
Of course, if you don’t mind your children to grow up as gays, then go ahead and support the gay cause.
abc
“That is contradictory. If not for genes, then what you are is shaped by environment and/or choice, no?”
This is not contradictory. A condition can be congenital but not heritable. eg. Birth defects caused by toxins/drugs ingested by mother during pregnancy.
abc
>> “That is contradictory. If not for genes, then what you are is shaped by environment and/or choice, no?”
This is not contradictory. A condition can be congenital but not heritable. eg. Birth defects caused by toxins/drugs ingested by mother during pregnancy.
>>
So, you are saying gay is a congenital defect? If yes, then the need for a cure or therapy is in order. If no, then where is that elusive gay gene which is passed down such that gay is inborn?
abc
“So, you are saying gay is a congenital defect? If yes, then the need for a cure or therapy is in order. If no, then where is that elusive gay gene which is passed down such that gay is inborn?”
1) I did not say that. Don’t put words into my mouth. All i did was point out that certain traits and/or conditions can be present at birth but not necessarily heritable.
2) You are presenting me a false dilemma.
3) Even if homosexuality is a congenital defect doesn’t mean that there is a need to “cure” them nor does it mean that a “cure” is avaliable. Existing data very much support the view that homosexuality cannot be changed.
fearandignorance
I dun understand how someone who is not gay can tell definitely that homosexual orientation is not inborn, unless she is bisexual and have homosexual tendencies or she is an expert in sexuality research.
Ahgong
Sometimes, i really pity those religious people. Their heart are filled with so much hatred for unknown reason. In the process of pursuing their holistic goal, they are drifting further away from the goal.
abc
>> 1) I did not say that. Don’t put words into my mouth. All i did was point out that certain traits and/or conditions can be present at birth but not necessarily heritable.
>>
Of course you did not say that. I am telling you what your words meant. So if you want to use congenital argument, it means gay is congenital defect. If you do not mean that, then where is that gay gene?
So? Want to tell me where is that gay gene?
>>2) You are presenting me a false dilemma.
>>
You put self in dilemma. I merely highlighted it.
>>3) Even if homosexuality is a congenital defect doesn’t mean that there is a need to “cure” them nor does it mean that a “cure” is avaliable.
>>
Whether there is a cure is not what I am interested. What I am telling you is that your congenital argument is a no brainer.
>>Existing data very much support the view that homosexuality cannot be changed.
>>
There is no consensus in the medical profession on that. All the data is just opinion.
fearandignorance
A cure is only possible with brain transplant and gene therapy.
It is said that gay men have similar brain structure to straight women.
No wonder the conversion therapy enjoys such low success.
Morris
Solo bear,
I appreciate your comments but you have misunderstood much of what I was trying to say in my lengthy essay above. Looks like I will need to improve on my essay-writing skills.
Now I have a question for you.
Assuming that it’s true that gays choose their sexual orientation.
May I know, before the gays chose to be gay, what was their sexual orientation? Were they heterosexual? asexual? …
Can I also assume that the straights also choose their sexual orientation? Before the straights chose to be straight, what was their sexual orientation? Were they homosexual, asexual? …
Assuming that sexual orientation is a conscious choice, like religion, is it true that we should still respect that choice if it doesn’t harm others?
I’m not a Christian myself but if my child were influenced by his Christian friends and decided to convert to Christianity, should I force my religious values on my child?
Should I force my child to have the same religion as myself? Should I demand that his teacher tell him that “Christianity is a negative word”?
Then, should parents force their heterosexist values on their children if the latter decide to “convert” to homosexuality? Should parents dictate that their children have the same sexual orientation as themselves?
There is a mother with two gays sons whom I respect very much. You can read about her story here.
>> It is said that gay men have similar brain structure to straight women.
>>
It could be because of gay behaviour that causes the brain structure to be similar to straight women. Ever thought about it? What make you so sure it is the other way?
After all, it is known that stroke victims after therapy. can cause the brain to restructure itself such that paralysed body parts regain their use.
>>No wonder the conversion therapy enjoys such low success.
>>
Persistent drug addicts who choose the dumps have low success therapy rates too.
The gay is inborn argument can only be supported if there is gay gene. No gay gene means no confirmation it is inborn. Traits that are not inborn are acquired due to environment or choice.
The gay is inborn argument is a no brainer for so long as no gene has been identified.
Morris
>>Existing data very much support the view that homosexuality cannot be changed.
>>
There is no consensus in the medical profession on that. All the data is just opinion.
____________________________________________________________
Solo bear,
as a medical (mental health professional, I have to say that your statement is utterly false.
morris
>> Assuming that it’s true that gays choose their sexual orientation.
>>
No, I did not say that. I said that is just preference, like preference for meat instead of fish. Did the meat lover choose that or was he born like that? No definite answers, right?
>>May I know, before the gays chose to be gay, what was their sexual orientation? Were they heterosexual? asexual? …
>>
How would I know? He definitely prefers same sex. That’s all I know.
>>Can I also assume that the straights also choose their sexual orientation? Before the straights chose to be straight, what was their sexual orientation? Were they homosexual, asexual? …
>>
Can you assume the fish lover chose to love fish? Or was he born with a taste for fish? No straight answers again.
>>Assuming that sexual orientation is a conscious choice, like religion, is it true that we should still respect that choice if it doesn’t harm others?
>>
I have always said gays should be allowed their space. Since when was that an issue?
>>I’m not a Christian myself but if my child were influenced by his Christian friends and decided to convert to Christianity, should I force my religious values on my child?
Should I force my child to have the same religion as myself? Should I demand that his teacher tell him that “Christianity is a negative word”?
>>
Your child, your call.
>>Then, should parents force their heterosexist values on their children if the latter decide to “convert” to homosexuality? Should parents dictate that their children have the same sexual orientation as themselves?
>>
All I know is that gays should not interfere how parents bring their children up. What parents want to do with their kids is up to them.
>>There is a mother with two gays sons whom I respect very much. You can read about her story here.
>>
Cuts no ice with the point that gay is inborn.
>>as a medical (mental health professional, I have to say that your statement is utterly false.
>>
So you are a medical professional. Good. Identify that gay gene.
Morris
The gay is inborn argument can only be supported if there is gay gene.
————————————————————————————————–
Solo bear,
if you do know a bit of genetics, I will say this: there are probably multiple susceptibility alleles each of small effect influencing the development of sexual orientation with early congenital/environmental factors, but it is simplistic to imagine a complex phenomenon such as sexual orientation being determined by a single gene.
The same applies to complex traits such as intelligence. The non-existence of a “high IQ” gene does not mean that high IQ is not heritable. We all know intuitively that IQ is very much an “inborn” thing. You are either a genius or you are not. No amount of “training” can turn someone with ordinary IQ into a Stephen Hawking..
Morris,
There you have it! So if it is so difficult to argue the gay gene theory, isn’t this notion of gay is inborn a little too premature for gays to keep saying it is true?
That’s exactly my point. It is NOT CONFIRMED, yet gays keep harping it is accepted by science!
As for the IQ stuff, please show connection between IQ and sexual orientation. Otherwise, you have just jumped the gun again.
Morris
So you are a medical professional. Good. Identify that gay gene.
_____________________________________________________
I can’t identify that gay gene.
You are right, solo bear. Homosexuality is not inborn. It’s a choice.
josh
“Till this day, he finds nothing wrong with his homosexual behaviour, believing that the Bible was written at a certain time for a certain people. ”
Can ANYONE see the LOL-ness in this sentance?
If you believe in Chrisitianity or Islam , You have to accept the absolute truths in the resepctive scriptures. Theres no way around this, it is DEMANDED that you do so.. Agreed there might be mis-intepretions here and there but the bottemline is you have to accept it if you embrace these religions!!!
So theres no such thing as a gay catholic or a gay muslim or a gay christian.
Either way, the moment one accepts he/she is gay means a compromisation on the religion since it violates the obvious sayings in the scripture or holy word of Allah.
Religion and Gay-ness dont mix. Trying to put it together is just a joke.
Justifying it just makes the entire thing really LOL
fearandignorance
Even if environment factors have caused the brain restructure, this change is irreversible unless a brain transplant or restructuring.
Only two areas in the brain where new neurons continue to be generated throughout life for which this is well established are the olfactory bulb, which is involved in the sense of smell, and the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus, where there is evidence that the new neurons play a role in storing newly acquired memories. With these exceptions, however, the set of neurons that are present in early childhood is the set that are present for life.
fearandignorance
I dun understand why u have to insist that homosexuality must be caused by a single gay gene in order to be inborn. This is a strawman argument.
Recent researches focus on genetic factors, renatal hormones on developing fetus and early childhood experience. All these factors support the theory that homosexuality is inborn and once someone reaches late childhood, his sexual orientation is fixed and irreversible.
thio
Is there any point in arguing this when nobody can confirm if there is such a thing as a gay gene?
Perhaps homosexuality is a product of nature + nurture?
I don’t know what it is, but when people possess such relentless conviction about the origins of homosexuality, I would be inclined to think that they are really just relating their own brushes with homosexuality.
A psychologist once said to me; the things we say about others really reflect how we feel about ourselves. True?
fearandignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeminization_and_masculinization
masculinization are the processes that a fetus goes through to become a male
Sexual differentiation in mammals is biased towards developing as a female
Two processes: defeminization, and masculinization, are involved in producing male typical morphology and behavior. Disruption of either of these processes in males produces female-typical development
This happens during pregnancy to produce a male brain and any disruption may result in homosexuality, satisfying homosexuality being inborn.
SotongBall
My personal view on gays has always been that it is their personal choice. I can conditionally accept them and their choice on the condition that it does not happen to my children. I believe many people think this way; can accept but don’t let it happen to my loved ones. For gays, do you find that it is very difficult for your parents to accept?
Yesterday watching the Monsters vs Aliens with my young kids. Two boys sitting right in front of us kissed. What do I tell my kids when they ask me? It is no big deal for boys to kiss each other? It is not ok and wrong?
fearandignorance
For those who after reading the four articles on change still strongly believe that homosexuality orientation is just a choice, are in fact not respecting and mocking those ex-gays who are making a big sacrifice in the name of God to stay celibate for life. They chose to forgo their right to close intimate relationship with a loved one that any heterosexual enjoys and take for granted. As their fellow Christian, u are not understanding their struggle and sacrifice they are making in the name of God.
If it is just a choice, why cant they become heterosexual after going thro a deliberate conversion therapy to change to heterosexuality.
theonlinecitizen
LadyMadonna,
Pls keep your comments to within 500 words.
Thanks.
abc
Morris,
I just there’s no point explaining the science behind the etiology of sexuality to people who are
1) Completely ignorant about genetics
2) Not open to evidence that contradicts their stand
fearandignorance
As a gay, I am happy for those ex-gays who have truly change their sexual orientation.
I pity those who lie about their change and choose to live a life in denial and decit.
I admire those who dare to speak the truth of conversion therapy and respect their choice of celibacy.
fearandignorance
>>Even if environment factors have caused the brain restructure, this change is irreversible unless a brain transplant or restructuring.
>>
How does that support the argument gay is inborn?
>> Sexual differentiation in mammals is biased towards developing as a female
>>
That has been confirmed eons ago – long before the gay pride began. It does NOTHING to confirm gay is inborn. In any case, if you want to use the above argument, then what about lesbians? It throws the concept of lesbianism off, no?
Thio
>> A psychologist once said to me; the things we say about others really reflect how we feel about ourselves. True?
>>
I’d rather say that if you keep saying things about yourself, you will believe what you say. That’s how champions and losers are made. They enact what they believe about themselves.
So gays who say gay is inborn, reinforce their gayness – a very vicious cycle that entraps them to a point of no return.
abc
>>I just there’s no point explaining the science behind the etiology of sexuality to people who are
1) Completely ignorant about genetics
2) Not open to evidence that contradicts their stand
>>
Stop beating about bush. Show how genetics cause gayness. There is NO CONSENSUS in the medical field. Why claim is when there is no confirmation?
fearandignorance
Solo Bear >> How does that support the argument gay is inborn?
It doesn’t, but it sure proves that sexual orientation is not just a choice (gays cannot make a choice to the which sex they are attracted to)
Once sexual orientation is determined by genes, during pregnancy and early childhood, it is FIXED and IRREVERSIBLE.
fearandignorance,
You keep repeating gay is not choice and it cannot be reversed.
Stop repeating that.
Prove it.
Where is the scientific evidence when there is NO CONSENSUS in the medical field?
fearandignorance
The same applies to u.
You keep repeating that gay is a choice and it can be reversed
Stop repeating that
Prove it
But according to APA,
under the question:What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
fearandignorance
And I am a living example!
>>The same applies to u.
You keep repeating that gay is a choice and it can be reversed
Stop repeating that
Prove it
>>
It has been done. There are cases where therapy worked and reversed gays to be heteros.
>>But according to APA,
under the question:What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
>>
Do you know that APA took a vote to consider homo not a disease?
What? Imagine a group of oncologists voting cancer is not a disease.
Ha ha. Since when medical science is based on votes?
fearandignorance
strawman argument again
everyone knows psychiatry is not an exact science
u ask for a CONSENSUS in the medical field and
I have given u that.
>>everyone knows psychiatry is not an exact science
>>
EXACTLY! So all the talk by gays that you have proof gay is inborn in nothing more than just opinion.
There is NO PROOF gay is inborn. Just opinion that it is.
So?
As for consensus, where it it? Consensus is majority opinion. A handful of studies hardly constitutes majority opinion.
So not only there is no proof, you don’t have majority opinion either.
And gays dare say science is on their side?
What pompous claim!
Kill-netizen??
Josh,
Do you embrace the idea that : there is a DOME (Sky) that separate the water under it (sky) from the water above it (sky), or the sun moves around the earth?
fearandignorance
>>The same applies to u.
You keep repeating that gay is a choice and it can be reversed
Stop repeating that
Prove it
>>
It has been done. There are cases where therapy worked and reversed gays to be heteros.
u cant prove all gays has a choice by giving examples of gays who have changed.
I am not sure if u understand elementary logic.
we can all agree that we are just being stubborn.
Kill-netizen??
Solo Bear
Please dont insult the medical community by writing : “What? Imagine a group of oncologists voting cancer is not a disease. Ha ha. Since when medical science is based on votes?”
Here a 3rd medical doctor is telling you:
(a) oncologist and gynaecologist did vote for carcinoma-in-situ is not considered cancer yet, but it is a medical condition that needs to be treated.
(b) a lot of medical science is based on votes and consensus. two of the examples being when we should start treating high LDL reading, whether beta-blockers should be used in treating patients with CCF.
(c) if you dont know about medical genetics, please “shut up and sit down”
(d) Genetic inheritance is not solely Mendelian, there are multifactorial inheritance, even for mendelian inheritance, there is salvage-genes too.
fearandignorance
>>u cant prove all gays has a choice by giving examples of gays who have changed.
>>
Whether I can prove is besides the point. The onus is on gays to prove that gay is inborn. They made that statement, the onus is on them to bring proof. Not the other way.
Kill netizen
>> Here a 3rd medical doctor is telling you:
(a) oncologist and gynaecologist did vote for carcinoma-in-situ is not considered cancer yet, but it is a medical condition that needs to be treated.
>>
All right big talker. Let’s see how you perform. Please cite source, date and details. Please tell us lay people how the above can be used as an argument to support that APA’s vote for considering homo as not a disease – a completely radical move, compared to carcinoma-in-situ, which to some is an early stage cancer.
One is a case of early symptom of cancer, the other a total 180 degree turn away from a current opinion it is a disease. Please show correlation, doc.
>>(b) a lot of medical science is based on votes and consensus. two of the examples being when we should start treating high LDL reading, whether beta-blockers should be used in treating patients with CCF.
>>
Treatment of patients has always been an opinion, hasn’t it? How does it lend credence to the fact that APA’s voting decision to turn 180 degrees is professional, which is an opinion whether a behaviour is a disease?
>>(c) if you dont know about medical genetics, please “shut up and sit down”
>>
If you know about medical genetics, don’t assume others have no knowledge about genetics or how medicine is practised.
>>(d) Genetic inheritance is not solely Mendelian, there are multifactorial inheritance, even for mendelian inheritance, there is salvage-genes too.
>>
Care to explain that, quack doc?
Your job is to show PROOF that gay is inborn. Cut your pseudo knowledge you possess, such that even professors and specialists don’t dare claim.
If you truly have the answer that gay is inborn, I dare challenge you put your medical profession on the line by stating in no uncertain terms, to the medical world that you have found proof that gay is inborn. Bring forth your studies to be examined.
Dare do it? If yes, just do it. If no, YOU shut up and sit down, doc.
Kill-netizen??
Medical profession dont even use a layman terms like “inborn” that old concept is thrown out in 1960s. In response:
(a) You wrote: A=“What? Imagine a group of oncologists voting cancer is not a disease.” And i countered : non-A=”oncologist and gynaecologist did vote for carcinoma-in-situ is not considered cancer yet, but it is a medical condition that needs to be treated.”
You jump in with “Please tell us lay people how the above can be used as an argument to support that APA’s vote for considering homo as not a disease – a completely radical move, compared to carcinoma-in-situ, which to some is an early stage cancer. ” ie B= “APA’s vote for considering homo as not a disease – a completely radical move”
I give you counter example to rule out A. By Mathematics of Logic, there is no need to proof B, because A is already disproved.
(b) You wrote: “Treatment of patients has always been an opinion”
Philosophy of medical science has ALWAYS been: “Treatment of an INDIVIDUAL patients is an opinion, to be view under each INDIVIDUAL clinical setting, BUT treatment of a condition in general is always a consensus” MOH sg has come up with no less than 60 guildlines of treatment — which is CONSENSUS. Most (if not all) national medical body throughout the world comes out with CONSENSUS.
This also counter proof your (a) APA come out with CONSENSUS that homosexuality is NOT a disease.
(c) you wrote : ” If you know about medical genetics, don’t assume others have no knowledge about genetics or how medicine is practised” is rheoterics.
Your ignorance in your genetic writings tells the truth. Since YOU (solo bear, and NO other people) dont know medical genetics, please SHUT UP and SIT DOWN.
I did not assume others have no knowledge about genetics or how medicine is practised.
(d) “Genetic inheritance is not solely Mendelian, there are multifactorial inheritance, even for mendelian inheritance, there is salvage-genes too” Google that or try to look for the 1984 SBC medical genetics series as delivered by Emeritus Prof Wong HB, he is a medical geneticist cum paediatrician.
(e) My duty is not to PROOF that gay is inborn. My duty is to tell you, to SHUT UP and SIT DOWN. You are spreading pseudo-science.
fearandignorance
Solo Bear>>>Whether I can prove is besides the point. The onus is on gays to prove that gay is inborn. They made that statement, the onus is on them to bring proof. Not the other way.
Christians are the ones who imposes their views on us gays and forced us to abandon homosexuality. All gays ask of Christians is to just leave us alone (live and let live) and do not condemn us.
Why do we have to prove something is imposed onto us when Christians cannot prove that gay is a choice and conversion therapy is safe and effective?
Beside, u are the one who first brought up gay as a sexual preference (on May 29th, 2009 8.00 pm ) in this discussion without any proof!
theonlinecitizen
This thread is now closed for further comments.
Kudos! At last a properly thought-out presentation of the Christian View!