Posted on 01/29/2003 11:29:48 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Summary: You be the judge. A letter form the editor in chief.
... I bring these matters to your attention because of a threatening phone call I received a few weeks ago from a fellow psychologist. On page 78 of our last issue, PT ran a small ad for a book called A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., and his wife Linda. Nicolosi is a psychologist who specializes in trying to help unhappy gays become straight. Apparently feeling that this rather modest contribution to the literature on homosexuality wasn't getting enough attention, the psychologist, who identified herself as a lesbian activist, called me at home on a Saturday to tell me that PT should not have run such a heinous ad, that she was speaking for "thousands" of gays who were going to boycott PT, "and worse," that Dr. Nicolosi was a "bigot," that no gay person had ever successfully become straight, that homosexuality was entirely determined by genes, and that sexual conversion therapy had been condemned by the American Psychological Association. I told her that the editorial department at PT has no connection whatsoever with the advertising department, but she was unimpressed. She subsequently posted messages on the Internet urging people to harrass me at home (no one else ever did) and to send me complaint letters.
In all, I received about 120 letters, many of which exemplified a bad game of Telephone: Some people complained about an anti-gay "article" PT had published; others referred to an anti-gay book I had published and people who weren't subscribers said they were dropping their subscriptions. Several writers suggested I was a "Nazi" and a "bigot," and one compared me with the Taliban. A surprising number of letters asserted that gays have a right to be rude or abusive because they themselves have been abused. Most echoed the same points that my caller had made....
(Excerpt) Read more at psychologytoday.com ...
So.. some gay men hit on you. How old were you? Did those men who initially got you interested in interviewing more men back off when you said you were not interested in sex?
Out of the two dozen men you interviewed, absolutely none of them came across as stable? Have you ever met a homosexual who did?
How do you get so many homosexual men to come on to you? Two dozen is an extraordinarily high number, for a straight man. Can you think of any reason that possibly would result in you attracting the seediest homos in every city you go to?
I don't want to come down on guys in general, but if I had to judge heterosexuals strictly on men who have come on to me, I'd have a pretty dim view. I find that in certain settings, if you spend a little conversation or allow a man to buy you a drink, somewhere along the way sometimes a feeling of entitlement pops up. It really wouldn't surprise me if that attitude was also prevalent with gay men.
For the record, I also have met gays and lesbians in Australia... did you catch any drag shows? Honestly, no matter how you feel about homosexuals, if you can't find humor in a drag show in Sydney something is wrong... :-)
In the end though, people still have a choice in the matter of how they are going to live their lives. One of my friends that I mentioned earlier was raised by two loving Christian parents, and was not molested as a child (I asked). After a period of rebellion and being angry for the way he was, he reaccpeted Christ, and remains celebate. He says the attraction is still there, but he doesn't act on it. He sees himself like any person born with a problem an doesn't rail against it or against God, but rather understands that things get messed up in a fallen world, and deals with things as appropriate. He's one of the rare ones that understands you don't get a "pass" just because you are naturally one way or the other. It's not fair, but whoever said the world was.
I'm with you here. I think children should be educated to treat everybody with respect, exceptions should not be made for any one group or groups of people wether the disctintion is racial, religious, or sexual orientation.
An important way of discovering why real populations change with time is to construct a model of a population that does not change. This is just what Hardy and Weinberg did. Their principle describes a hypothetical situation in which there is no change in the gene pool (frequencies of alleles), hence no evolution.
Consider a population whose gene pool contains the alleles A and a. Hardy and Weinberg assigned the letter p to the frequency of the dominant allele A and the letter q to the frequency of the recessive allele a. Since the sum of all the alleles must equal 100%, then p + q = 1. They then reasoned that all the random possible combinations of the members of a population would equal (p+q)2 or p2+ 2pq + q2. The frequencies of A and a will remain unchanged generation after generation if the following conditions are met:
1. Large population. The population must be large to minimize random sampling errors.
2. Random mating. There is no mating preference. For example an AA male does not prefer an aa female.
3. No mutation. The alleles must not change.
4. No migration. Exchange of genes between the population and another population must not occur.
5. No natural selection. Natural selection must not favor any particular individual.
First, this theory appears to be a control theory. They are not saying that this is the way it IS. They are saying that this is the way it WOULD BE if we had no mutation, migration, natural selection; and always had large populations and random mating.
There are two problems with the concept of the "gay gene" no matter how you combine its cause. Being gay eliminates random mating. Gays only mate with gays and they do not reproduce (in theory they shouldn't -- the fact that they sometimes DO just puts another hole in the argment and it certainly wouldn't bring the frequencies up to a random level).
Also, being gay becomes victim to natural selection. Nature favors non-gays over gays in that one can reproduce and the other cannot.
I do not see how the equation will EVER work, regardless of the gene combination. Perhaps the complexity of it can REDUCE the decline rate, but it couldn't eliminate it if its cause is genetic and if you believe in all of the above scientific theories.
That's the best I got. :-)
Not bad. If I can think of a hole to punch in it I will. LOL In the meantime, it's been fun. Thanks for the conversation. I've learned a lot.
For the record though, I'm not necessarily saying that there is a gay gene or genes, but that if there were they wouldn't necessarily get lost in the evolution.
God Bless.
We probably should acknowledge that some people can behave homosexually while feeling oriented heterosexually and vice versa. For example, the prison phenomenon. I would think all men (or women) who act as gays in prison are not necessarily gay in "orientation" per se.
Conclusion: It is possible to exhibit gay behavior minus a gay orientation.
Additionally, some people (especially lesbians) can develop a same-sex preference after traumatic experiences (particularly in childhood and especially abuse by males).
Conclusion: It is possible to develop gay orientation through trauma.
Question: Is it possible to develop a gay orientation through exposure and experience? Can someone be straight, go to prison let's say, and come out preferring men?
Some people develop abnormal sexual attractions as displayed by child rapists, other rapists, window peepers, the "sexually obsessed."
Conclusion: It is possible to develop a sexual attraction ("orientation") that is not normal.
That doesn't prove the other scenarios do not exist. It just proves that it is not the only road. I also think, no matter what side of this anyone is on, that we have to allow for the concept that some people might get confused. The mind is a complex thing. For example, people held captive for a long period can develop emotional attachments to their captors. Abused woman can think it's their fault. Our perceptions of a situation, even of our own feelings, can get completely off track. That is why gay activists are so wrong and insincere when they try to shut down therapies to change orientation.
There are so many factors.
People latch onto the successes and failures and insist that's the way it has to be for everyone.
"John Paulk was a drag queen and homosexual prostitute, and now he's married with children -- EVERYONE can change!"
"John Paulk was spotted in a gay bar -- NOONE can change!"
"Our successes are either married or celibate -- EVERYONE can change!"
"Celibacy isn't heterosexuality -- NOONE can change!"
If a young girl was molested repeatedly and developed abnormal feelings towards men as a result, can't you see that therapy addressing her sexual orientation and behavior might be appropriate? There are other scenerios. It is therapy for those who WANT it. To deny them that seems cruel to me. You can still argue that others neither need, want or are capable of change (I probably won't agree, but will concede I haven't proven it beyond any doubt).
How old were you when you knew them? Are you male or female?
Yes, these questions are pertinent. I doubt gays go about 'bragging' that they are recruiting 14 year old boys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.