Posted on 11/20/2004 11:53:34 AM PST by Lindykim
ping
I read the failure rate was 28 percent in Encyclopedia Britannica. Homosexuality is reversible and this was done in a non-religious setting.
Homosexual Agenda PING:
The evidence is there. The evidence is overwhelming. Homosexuality IS reversable, just like any other addiction.
Homonazis and their enablers in the MSM wish to keep these facts silent. Let us not allow them to win this battle.
(If you want on or off the ping list, let me or littlejeremiah know!)
This is overwhelming evidence?
bttt
I am a sceptic of sorts
The Ex homosexuals that I have seen inteviewed still seem limp wristed to me
It is common for gay people to suppose that the cause of their orientation is essentially biological and that they can't really affect it. But the political forces that caused homosexuality to be removed from the list of mental illnesses also stopped research into psychological or psychoanalytic explanations of homosexuality. From what I've read, these explanations are the best explanations of homosexuality. The biological explanations are found wanting now; "gay gene" research was failed to be replicated. (Dean Hamer, who claimed the original "gay gene" in the early 1990s, has now gone on to find a gene that predisposes people to be religious. He calls this the "God gene", naturally.)
To their credit, some gay writers acknowledge that some gays can change. They now say that people should not be expected to follow either path and should be left alone. If a man decides to try the ex-gay path, they are willing to support him. However, I have friends for whom this simply couldn't work; they're in long-term relationships, and I'm not one to issue a blanket condemnation of gay people whose behavior is responsible (avoiding drugs, promiscuity, etc.). They will face God one day, and so will I.
I read an older edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. The study was done in the 1970s I believe. I read about the gay gene and it was only found in men, not women.
And your point is?
bump
By all means, use anecdotal evidence to form your opinions of the world. All the squirrels in my backyard are black in color, therefor I remain "skeptical" that brown ones truely exist.
That's because the only therapy available to homosexuals is faith based, if the patient isn't motivated by religion then there is an ethical problem forcing them to change. If the tyranny of the APA's didn't exist you'd see cognitive/behavioral therapy used by accredited psychologists/psychiatrists with much better results than the faith based therapies available now.
The founder of every ex-gay ministry in America has proved to be an extraordinary failure. The two founders of Exodus International [the world's largest 'ex-gay' organization] divorced their wives to move in together."
"Homonazis and their enablers in the MSM wish to keep these facts silent. Let us not allow them to win this battle. "
Homonazis. Wow, first time I've seen it, and actually really noticed it. And, of course, it fits. See about the Pink Swastika HERE:
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/pinkswastika.hold/book.html
There are plenty of very active self-identifying homosexuals who are far from limp wristed. You must not have spent much time in San Francisco. I have. Many homosexuals are very butch, very uber-masculine appearing and acting.
The whole idea that homosexuals are always effeminate is completely inaccurate. Many are, but many are not.
And apparently effeminate mannerisms do not necessarily denote sexual perversion. Some men are just more meek mannered or dorky. No big deal.
Maybe you should read the whole article and find out what it's really saying.
I did. ;)
I recall reading that Hamer and his colleagues did some preliminary research, doing surveys of men and women. They found out that women seem to be more variable in their sexuality, more likely to happen to switch from same-sex partners to opposite-sex partners or back. But according to their research, men are much more likely to stay in the one orientation or the other. Sexuality researchers speak of the "Kinsey scale" of 0 through 6 (where 0 means you're completely straight, 6 means you're completely gay). Hamer found out that the distribution is bimodal (U-shaped): there are lots of men who are 0 on the scale, and some men who are 6 on the scale, but not so many in between. This suggested to Hamer & company that homosexuality in men (but not women) is a trait, something that's possibly genetic. So they then employed standard techniques for finding genes (techniques used to locate genes for genetic disorders, etc), and homed in on one particular gene. Very interesting work, but as I mentioned before, other researchers weren't able to replicate it.
Other lines of investigation strengthen the psychological explanations. I recall reading that youngest sons are somewhat more likely to turn out gay. I also recall reading about a study that tracked boys identified by their peers as "sissies" -- 75% of them turned out to be homosexual when they reached adulthood. Evidently, things that interrupt or interfere with the social development of boys amongst their peers sets the stage for the development of homosexuality.
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.