Heteroflexible -- or Fauxmosexual?

From the end of my FR profile:

Richard was recruited at 17 years old by an older man. Richard's father was an alcoholic. Richard suffered from low self esteem and loneliness, so he was easy prey for the older experienced homosexual man.
Richard thought he was born gay. And the 12 years he lived the homosexual lifestyle he was 100% gay - he completely bought the lie. Now he is 100% recovered from, in his own words a "sick and twisted life."
How did Richard leave the homosexual lifestyle? He found some folks who really cared for him and he watched a video about the root causes of homosexuality. For Richard, his gender identity confusion came from a deep need for a father/son relationship.
Richard says: "There are many ex-gays like myself who would like to help."
Richard is one of the tens of thousands of former homosexuals.

There are many similar stories of homsexuals, that is, those only attracted to members of the same sex who have left the lifestyle, are cured, and are strictly heterosexual. When you say you doubt those people were truly homosexual, what you are really saying is that you need to keep reading:

Spitzer Study Published: Evidence Found for Effectiveness of Reorientation Therapy
Spitzer Forced to Cancel Appearance to Discuss His Ex-.Gay. Study
Supporting Documents on Spitzer
Spitzer on Homosexuals can Change, part 1
Spitzer on Homosexuals can Change, part 2
Spitzer on Homosexuals can Change, part 3

Even Dr. Robert Spitzer changed his mind.

"Since females are allowed by our culture to explore sex-role diversity -- they can be more tomboyish than boys can be sissyish

So they're calling homosexuals sissies?

Maybe they ought to define 'tomboy' -- because I was as tomboyish as they come and guy crazy from the beginning.

The women I see exploring lesbianism are far from tomboyish.

I doubt those people were truly homosexual. More likely, they were bisexual.

Well ain't that convenient.

Ignoring that nice dodge, it doesn't really MATTER what you think they were, what matters is what the person believed about him or herself because that is all anyone else has to go by. They believed they were homosexual and yet they managed to find a way to change their orientation.

A very good analogy:

On ducks and homosexuality

"the word choice can be a complicated word in this instance."

Absolutely. And I have no doubts that in the majority of cases, it is not a conscious choice as in getting up one morning and saying "I'm going to be a homosexual." But the series of actions that takes a person down that road are choices.

"I could no more choose to find sex with a man enjoyable"

You might also not choose to find eating twinkies for every meal enjoyable. But someone else might. Yet if they gave in to that temptation, no one would be running around saying 'it wasn't a choice - they were born that way.'

We may not choose what tempts us, but we do choose to resist or give in to that temptation.

I don't find anything you said unreasonable. There is a lot of confused thinking about what exactly it is that we choose. Do I choose to be sexually attracted to women? No. Do I choose to go to bed with, let's say, Stephanie on any particular occasion? Yes.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that we don't choose to actually have sex with those people with whom we actually have sex. Yes, it is a conscious choice to strip down and do it.

But that's not what makes a person gay or straight, is it? Just doing an act? I mean, anyone can do the act, whatever that act might be. It's just physical movement. I mean, I have to admit, if I were paid a million dollars to have sex with a man, I would consider it. Would that make me gay? Not in my mind.

Isn't it the desire to do the act, whatever the act might be, what places a person in the gay or straight camp? And if, as you say, desire is not chosen, how can we say that being gay or straight is chosen?

"Isn't it the desire to do the act, whatever the act might be, what places a person in the gay or straight camp?"

I guess that depends on how one chooses to define it. Would a person who has the desire to steal incessantly but resists the urge to do so still be a kleptomaniac? I would say no. You may say otherwise.

I would say, yes. Same with an alcoholic (I hear that a lot ... I'm an alchoholic and I haven't had a drink for 10 years, or whatever). And a Chirstian is or should not be so defined simply because of the church he goes to (anyone can go to any church) but by what he believes, what is inside his head.

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.