[limulus54]

Levithan posted:

It's not something the conscious mind can just suddenly CHANGE.

It's an innate thing, some people are fluid and can be aroused by either sex to varying degrees, others are only attracted to a single sex.

It's one of the main god damned reasons why "Gay Therapy" doesn't work, they're still gay on the inside.

Still seems like a bad idea to rule out the possibility.

[Levithan]

well I suppose you could have a stroke or something

[DanTehMan]

deaded38 posted:

No, my argument was just fine. I never said "all gay people are gay because their parents were". If you could read, I said it all depends on other environmental factors. If you're home-schooled in a house with two gay parents, yes you will probably be gay since that is what you've seen love as. Also, people CAN change their attractions. People have turned gay before. It's not "oh you're one or the other your whole life". I'm not in one bit of denial. I admit when I'm wrong or have been defeated and this is not one of those times.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue with you, we're trying to tell you that you are just wrong. There have been numerous gay adoptions and most of the kids turn out straight. You could argue that kids could be conditioned to be gay, but since all kids are conditioned to be straight, why are there gay people?

And you keep insisting that people have turned gay or straight seemingly at their will, this is also wrong and not supported by fact. Those testimonials by the gay therapy clinics don't mention the huge relapse rate of gay feelings and behaviors associated with their patients, it simply isn't possible to change your physical attractions at will, over a long or short run. if someone claims they've turned one way or another, they would've had to have a predisposition to it earlier in life.

[Bletotum]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatch...ought+Blogs%29

[deaded38]

DanTehMan posted:

I don't think anyone is trying to argue with you, we're trying to tell you that you are just wrong. There have been numerous gay adoptions and most of the kids turn out straight. You could argue that kids could be conditioned to be gay, but since all kids are conditioned to be straight, why are there gay people?

And you keep insisting that people have turned gay or straight seemingly at their will, this is also wrong and not supported by fact. Those testimonials by the gay therapy clinics don't mention the huge relapse rate of gay feelings and behaviors associated with their patients, it simply isn't possible to change your physical attractions at will, over a long or short run. if someone claims they've turned one way or another, they would've had to have a predisposition to it earlier in life.

Again, I'm not saying "all gay people are gay because their parents were". If you're going to quote my post, at least read it. There are other environmental factors besides the parents. All kids aren't conditioned to be straight. If their parents are gay and they don't interact with straight people much, yes they're probably going to be gay because of the sheer fact that the child has seen love in that way. As to why there are gay people, I'm assuming there are biological factors that helped create the first gay person. Sooner or later, gays started adopting children. At this point, these children had the potential to be gay due to the environmental factors throughout their childhood. Again, I'm not saying that all gay people raise gay children. It would be dumb of me to say so. What I'm saying is there is a reasonable chance that a child raised by two gay parents can be gay depending on other environmental factors. Get it? Good.

And yes, I am insisting that because you act like there hasn't been a single straight person who has turned gay and has been happy with his/her life - which is bullshit. Sure, it doesn't happen very often. I never said it did. But it is possible.

Edited:

Bletotum posted:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatch...ought+Blogs%29

Just because you found an article of an "ex-gay's" shitty opinion on this matter doesn't mean that gay people haven't become straight before. Besides, I'm pretty sure that article was created as an attempt to make gays believe they're fine the way they are and that they shouldn't change it. I'm not saying gays aren't fine the way they are. It's just that article seemed like it was trying to convince gays to have "gay pride" or whatever and not to change themselves because that would be "bad".

[Croix]

deaded38 posted:

But it is possible.

I'd like to see a source on this.

And goddamn, you really seem like a homophobe from your posts.

And changing yourself would be bad, go kiss some dude and we'll see how fun it is.

[deaded38]

Croix posted:

I'd like to see a source on this.

And goddamn, you really seem like a homophobe from your posts.

And changing yourself would be bad, go kiss some dude and we'll see how fun it is.

I don't need a source. It's called common sense. Gay people can become straight. Maybe not in the exact same way a lifelong straight person. But it can happen.

No, I'm not a homophobe. Just because I know the truth doesn't mean I'm a homophobe. Contrary to popular belief, I have gay friends.

Changing yourself isn't bad. I stopped beating the shit out of people over silly things when I got into middle school because I matured. That's a change. Also, you're acting like the change is spontaneous. I'm sure it takes time and support. You don't just go ahead and start kissing someone of the same sex for any reason.

[Megafan]

deaded38 posted:

I don't need a source. It's called common sense. Gay people can become straight. Maybe not in the exact same way a lifelong straight person. But it can happen.

Gonna have to stop you right there. This is a debate, and in this sort of instance you need to produce a source. If you do not and continue to assert this, you will be banned.

[Bletotum]

deaded38 posted:

Just because you found an article of an "ex-gay's" shitty opinion on this matter doesn't mean that gay people haven't become straight before. Besides, I'm pretty sure that article was created as an attempt to make gays believe they're fine the way they are and that they shouldn't change it. I'm not saying gays aren't fine the way they are. It's just that article seemed like it was trying to convince gays to have "gay pride" or whatever and not to change themselves because that would be "bad".

That "shitty opinion" of evidence, that you brush off like you do any other evidence contrary to your argument(while stating that you are totally right and don't need proof), comes from the president of one of the largest "ex-gay" ministries.

If you cannot accept that you could be wrong, and rely on something so flimsy a reason as "common sense", you should not be stating the nature of a group of people that you are not a part of.

[Levithan]

Please site your sources, from which you engineered this "common sense", please.

[deaded38]

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=117465&page=1

Happy?

Edited:

Bletotum posted:

That "shitty opinion" of evidence, that you brush off like you do any other evidence contrary to your argument(while stating that you are totally right and don't need proof), comes from the president of one of the largest "ex-gay" ministries.

If you cannot accept that you could be wrong, and rely on something so flimsy a reason as "common sense", you should not be stating the nature of a group of people that you are not a part of.

Maybe you need to accept you're wrong. I provided my source since you people seem to think EVERYTHING needs one. I don't brush off evidence. There hasn't been any except for your pro-gay article.

Also, common sense can be the best source of all.

[Levithan]

The part where your source says the study has not "been published or reviewed" makes me skeptical of it's validity.

Haldeman, however, noted that some 43 percent of those sampled were referred by religious groups that condemn homosexuality. Another 23 percent were referred by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which says most of its members consider homosexuality a developmental disorder.

"The sample is terrible, totally tainted, totally unrepresentative of the gay and lesbian community," said David Elliot, a spokesman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington.

welp

[Megafan]

deaded38 posted:

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=117465&page=1

Happy?

Uh, no? Did you even read your source, it's dubious as hell.

A controversial new study says yes — if they really want to. Critics, though, say the study's subjects may be deluding themselves and that the subject group was scientifically invalid because many of them were referred by anti-gay religious groups.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatry professor at Columbia University, said he began his study as a skeptic — believing, as major mental health organizations do, that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and attempts to do so can even cause harm.

But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed, seems to indicate otherwise. Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.

He said those who changed their orientation had satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thought of someone of the same sex during intercourse.

He also found that 89 percent of men and 95 percent of women were bothered not at all or only slightly by unwanted homosexual feelings. However, only 11 percent of men and 37 percent of women reported a complete absence of homosexual indicators.

"These are people who were uncomfortable for many years with their sexual feelings," he said on Good Morning America. But they managed to change those feelings, he added.

The study reopens the debate over "reparative therapy," or treatment to change sexual preference. Spitzer argues that highly motivated gays can in fact change that preference — with a lot of effort.

But critics have challenged the study, even before it was formally unveiled at today's session of the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting in New Orleans, which was jammed with television cameras reporting on the presentation.

Another study presented today even contradicted the finding. Ariel Shidlo and Michael Shroeder, two psychologists in private practice in New York City, found that of 215 homosexual subjects who received therapy to change their sexual orientation, the majority failed to do so.

A small subset reported feeling helped.

That study has also not been published or reviewed.

Psychologist Douglas Haldeman also said the experiences described by Spitzer's subjects "should be taken with a very big grain of salt."

The people in Spitzer's sample, he said, may be fooling themselves.

So let's see: A not peer reviewed or published study that psychologists and others are incredibly skeptical of because the subjects were referred by anti-gay groups is the source you've used? Garbage, absolute garbage.

deaded38 posted:

Maybe you need to accept you're wrong. I provided my source since you people seem to think EVERYTHING needs one. I don't brush off evidence. There hasn't been any except for your pro-gay article.

Also, common sense can be the best source of all.

You are in no position to be critical of them for asking for your source, this is a debate. Common sense is not a source in this setting.

[limulus54]

Megafan posted:

Uh, no? Did you even read your source, it's dubious as hell.

and a quote on some guy's blog isn't?

[Megafan]

limulus54 posted:

and a quote on some guy's blog isn't?

It's not definitive evidence of homosexuality being not by choice, but deaded38 specifically stated that homosexual people could become homosexual without a source, whilst claiming that he did not need one. Now that he has posted one, it's incredibly shoddy.

[deaded38]

Megafan posted:

It's not definitive evidence of homosexuality being not by choice, but deaded38 specifically stated that homosexual people could become homosexual without a source, whilst claiming that he did not need one. Now that he has posted one, it's incredibly shoddy.

Just like the one posted before me. It's no different.

[VenomousBeetle]

I thought this thread was great then I reread a couple of random pages and a lot of the posts I saw sounded like they belonged in a thread titled "Persecute and misunderstand anyone who can see why some people don't like gays and use terrible comparisons v2"

I thought this was a debate about why there's nothing wrong with gays and why some people aren't so fond of them.

I saw someone post an image of a facebook post that said something funny (although to the classier falls under disgusting) and saying something along the lines of "Some people like this ruin it for others and give them a bad image". They were then called out for having an avatar of a woman sitting in a pool and said something about "IS THAT ANYMORE ACCEPTABLE THAN A BARELY COVERED PENIS?".

First off the bikini was not barely covering her, second genitalia is a lot more offensive than someone's chest. The comparison was even worse considering men (potentially gay men) are allowed to not wear any form of top in public. Another reason it's a terrible comparison, that person rules out lesbians.

Edit:

Not to say that everyone here is terrible, it's just some people should stop posting.

[deaded38]

VenomousBeetle posted:

I thought this was a debate about why there's nothing wrong with gays and why some people aren't so fond of them.

I honestly don't think there was anything to debate about why gays are bad - because they aren't.

[Bletotum]

deaded38 posted:

Just like the one posted before me. It's no different.

How can the quote of the head of a large and relevant organization be shoddy? It's in video too.

back to you brushing off contrary evidence

[limulus54]

Bletotum posted:

How can the quote of the head of a large and relevant organization be shoddy? It's in video too.

back to you brushing off contrary evidence

It's about as shoddy as the study he posted, if not worse. Your source is by no means scientific in nature, and if it were, the participants of ex-gay programs would by a horribly biased sample.

[Bletotum]

I think the head of a large company has no reason to make a false statement that could harm his business; being the head of an 'ex-gay' group of facilities puts him in a knowledgeable position on the subject. If he says that the overwhelming majority of subjects fail to change their orientation, then I am inclined to believe so.

[Crimor]

SiPlus posted:

It's OK to be gay, I think, but it's not OK to be faggot. Gay is homosexual man, faggot is hypersexual homosexual man. Hypersexuality is bad both with straight nymphomaniacs and faggots.

And as a gay person I agree with what louis CK is saying here.

(User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how to post in Mass Debate" - Megafan))

[Sobotnik]

deaded38 posted:

No, I'm not a homophobe. Just because I know the truth doesn't mean I'm a homophobe. Contrary to popular belief, I have gay friends.

This is the same as saying:

"I'm not racist, I have black/asian/etc friends."

[limulus54]

Bletotum posted:

I think the head of a large company has no reason to make a false statement that could harm his business; being the head of an 'ex-gay' group of facilities puts him in a knowledgeable position on the subject. If he says that the overwhelming majority of subjects fail to change their orientation, then I am inclined to believe so.

And that's really good for you, but it doesn't make your source more valid than his.

[NicoleEmilid]

Would you consider transgenders to be homosexual?

[Rents]

NicoleEmilid posted:

Would you consider transgenders to be homosexual?

Depends what their gender is and who they're attracted to.

[sgman91]

Just for clarification, it seems like this: http://www.narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html talks about a published study done by Dr. Robert L. Spitzer about the ability of gay people to become straight. He was also one of the doctors who helped push through the change of homosexuality not being a mental disorder.

[OldFusion]

deaded38 posted:

I don't need a source. It's called common sense. Gay people can become straight. Maybe not in the exact same way a lifelong straight person. But it can happen.

No, I'm not a homophobe. Just because I know the truth doesn't mean I'm a homophobe. Contrary to popular belief, I have gay friends.

Changing yourself isn't bad. I stopped beating the shit out of people over silly things when I got into middle school because I matured. That's a change. Also, you're acting like the change is spontaneous. I'm sure it takes time and support. You don't just go ahead and start kissing someone of the same sex for any reason.

So you like potatoes, i can't just stop you from liking potatoes by slapping you in the face and keep telling you you don't like potatoes, its just not gone happen.

Over time you might develop and start liking potatoes less, who knows, but you cant force it.

[Bletotum]

limulus54 posted:

And that's really good for you, but it doesn't make your source more valid than his.

Words, words. Why exactly is what I just said false?

[Delrainn]

They bitch.

(User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how to post in Mass Debate" - Megafan))

[Levithan]

Delrainn posted:

They bitch.

wow hey guys we got a quality poster that posts such quality posts from the LGBTQ thread such as:

Delrainn posted:

It's still funny how much you guys whine.

Why even label yourself gay if you want to look at guys that look like ugly girls or just aren't interested in men at all (excluding lesbians). You shouldn't be in this thread in the first place if you need SFW. come on now, it's in the damn name. PINK DILDOS EDITION

meh, w/e you guys can talk about your manly purses im outta here

Your accusation is unfounded, and just plain mean.

[The First 11'er]

SiPlus posted:

It's OK to be gay, I think, but it's not OK to be faggot. Gay is homosexual man, faggot is hypersexual homosexual man. Hypersexuality is bad both with straight nymphomaniacs and faggots.

(User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how to post in Mass Debate" - Megafan))

This is not a term for the amount of homosexuality one presents. It's a derogatory term to bash homosexuals, but it raises the same definition. I believe people like to call them "flaming" when they're a flamboyant gay.

[Wux]

There's nothing wrong with them.
I think we just have to respect them, the problem is, when some gays, fall in love with heterosexual male, they can't realise that, some men don't want men.

[Levithan]

Jesus what is with people that are afraid I'm gonna stick my dong up their butts just because I like dudes??

[Wux]

Tell that to the gay of my classroom, that dude loves me, and scare's the shit out of me.

[Bletotum]

Wux posted:

There's nothing wrong with them.
I think we just have to respect them, the problem is, when some gays, fall in love with heterosexual male, they can't realise that, some men don't want men.

the same applies with straight men and women that are uninterested in them

Wux posted:

Tell that to the gay of my classroom, that dude loves me, and scare's the shit out of me.

don't let your experience with someone have you generalize a group

[Wux]

Sure.

[limulus54]

Bletotum posted:

Words, words. Why exactly is what I just said false?

It isn't. It just isn't any better a source than what deaded posted.

[Bletotum]

Deaded and my source both are opposing words by individuals on the subject. His source is the result of a man polling individuals (who risks nothing), mine is from a head of a relevant organization that deals directly with the people in question, who risks losing profits(which speaks for the validity of the content). I would say that this acts as a better source.

Not being a scientific study does not disqualify something as a source. If that were the case, much court testimony would be null.

[limulus54]

Bletotum posted:

Deaded and my source both are opposing words by individuals on the subject. His source is the result of a man polling individuals (who risks nothing), mine is from a head of a relevant organization that deals directly with the people in question, who risks losing profits(which speaks for the validity of the content). I would say that this acts as a better source.

Not being a scientific study does not disqualify something as a source. If that were the case, much court testimony would be null.

Alright, you seem to be having some trouble with this. At no point did I say that either of these sources are invalid in any way.

They are just both equally questionable. The man polling individuals does risk something, his reputation and the with that the respect of a community he likely values. Either way, I think risk hardly counts for much in terms of how much a source may be trusted.