According to you.

I guess I'll have to inform the people I know personally that it has worked for...

How predictable, when you can't argue just call the other person a homophobe.

Sigh.

No, according to any trustworthy source, but I wouldn't expect you to know what that is.

Here is a home task for you:

Find a person A that you are sexually attracted to. Find a person B that you are not sexually attracted to.

Now you have on month to switch it around. You must be turned off by A and turned on by B. After that you get one more month: If you ever "revert" to your old pattern within that time, you have failed.

Go.

This is a valid point, I've heard of both situations occurring, there's no need to only accept one but deny the other.

I've heard of many marriages ending when one spouse "discovers" they are gay. No one would argue that they are lying to themselves and are actually straight, so the same courtesy should be given to someone who claims they thought they were gay but discovered they were straight. If one is possible, the other is as well.

Either way, whenever there is a debate of nature vs nurture, the majority of the time you discover both play a role, I suspect this is the case here too.

Sexual attraction to gender is not always a binary proposal. Nor is bi-sexuality an equal preference for both genders. It is fully possible to be sexually attracted to a few men and many women or vice versa.

You and FZ are also forgetting that homosexuality is more than sexual attraction, it is also romantic attraction. Many people fully capable of sexual interest in both men and women have chosen relatively loveless lives with the "culturally accepted gender", in huge part due to the kind of sentiment that you, Dogg and FZ represent (although to varying degrees); that homosexuality is a sin. Many also lie to themselves, as humans we tend to rationalize our choices and find good reasons why we "keep going to the job we don't like" or "don't ask the cute girl on a date".

For many of these this is of course difficult. To lie to themselves is often not so bad, but to lie to their spouse and their children can often be a source of anguish.

Let's put this in context: You meet the perfect girl, she's your age, an adult and everything between you is consensual. You fall instantly in love. 60% of society thinks you are sinful, you will often be refused the right to marry her, if you have sex many people will be disgusted by this act and in many countries it would be punishable by sentences up to death, priests will be waggling their fingers and saying you are not going attain salvation and nor is she, the merits and morals of your your love life is debated everywhere by everyone and your parents thinks you are sick and need cure. A lot of very otherwise very reasonable and nice people will think you represent the downfall of American culture. You will both risk being beat up simply because you are attracted to eachother and hold hands down the street.

Does it sound like fun?

The point is that people exist, who would have been neutral, or even supportive of homosexuality if not for what it says about it in their religion. That there are non-religious people who are homophobic is true but irrelevant to my point because they would most likely be homophobic if they were religious too. It's possible that there are people who were homophobic and changed their stance because of their religion (but that can't be many because the religions that support homosexuality are 'fringe minorities' at most). So, it seems to me then, that there would be fewer homophobes if there were no religion. Since I regard homophobia as a negative, this counts overall as a negative effect of religion.

I'm using 'homophobic' here in the sense of being anti-homosexuality, rather than 'afraid' of homosexuals.

Actually, I suspect religion to be a net negative even if there are any gods.

But presumably you think that they're wrong in their view.

So, Christianity, from your view point, is assuming that you are a flawed, sinful person, who needs to be redeemed. Honestly I can't really think of a much more depressing worldview. You're not really selling it to me.

So, given what you said above, what's the importance of 'temptation', why does it matter whether or not you actually have gay sex, if you're already deemed sinful? The temptation seems somewhat trivial in light of you already being something that God rejects.

Actually there was an argument there, you just missed it, and you still haven't responded to my point about the 'she was never a lesbian' not being the only option I listed.

Let me know how your testing of TD's task goes for you.

Don't be fooled by Zit's quoting out of context one option from the three I suggested. I'm not saying that anyone who changes in their sexual orientation was never what they originally what they thought that they were, he's just (deliberately?) misrepresenting what I said.

People sometimes 'discover' that their sexuality isn't what they thought it was, tastes change, but I strongly doubt that it's a matter of choice. I'd also suggest that many more people fall somewhere on the spectrum of bisexual, than are truly gay. The irony is that they're often discriminated against by both gay and straight people.

In your example above, I'd say it's more likely that they were lying to themselves about being straight (or simply went along with what was expected of them, never considering alternatives), not the other way around.

These are very good, perceptive, points and ones that completely escape the majority of both straight and gay people alike.

On a recent facebook thread, one of my friends spoke about how little she cared that Tom Daley (UK Olympian) is gay, presumably patting herself on the back for her tolerant attitude. When I pointed out that he came out as bisexual, not gay, she made a comment about 'can't be bothered to argue semantics'.

There's a whole other level of ignorance beneath the 'main' argument about homosexuality and many people can't quite seem to wrap their heads around the idea that gay and straight are not the only options.

Maybe.

I don't doubt that many people rationalize their decisions as you suggest, I don't disagree with much of what you say, I'm really only posing a question since you seem to be suggesting that only gay people can believe they are straight and realize they are actually gay, while straight people cannot. I'm not saying whether I believe this or not, but I think all things being equal, that both should be feasible.

I cut some of this to make it smaller, but I understand what you're saying, I'm not saying it's easy, but there are scenarios where the opposite is possible. Maybe it's more unlikely, but to say that it's only a one-way change seems illogical, given your argument.

Theoretically someone may decide to love homosexuals more as a religious person, because they believe that love is a crucial aspect of life, while they may be indifferent to them as an atheist.

My other point was that it's a matter of perspective. If you are conservative then some religious aspects are a net positive, as my friend suggests. To argue is subjective.

I think everything boils down to this. If God created everything and set everything according to how He wanted it, it doesn't make sense to say it's a net negative. What it means is that you disagree with the deity that made things like they are. If God doesn't exist then you could say it's a net negative, this may be argued by conservatives, but now it is a logical stance.

Yeah, I think it's a sin, so I think it's damaging to obscure that fact.

I'm not capable of selling you anything, I think we both know that.

As a Christian living by faith, you would have a different attitude. It's the equivalent of a child living in a way to try to get away with as much as possible from his parents. As you grow older, you realize it's not about getting away with with things, but getting to know and loving your parents. It's not so different an analogy considering we treat God as a Father.

As for unbelief in God, I can't judge how good or bad they are doing as far as sin goes, but it's not as important as acknowledging Christ.

I was suggesting that you should accept this (the bolded) from both straight and gay people. It only makes sense by what you argue. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the actual position, but that for it to be logical it should go both ways.

Not maybe, this is just a true fact.

Sure, it's possible, but does it ever happen? There is significant social pressure to be and live straight. It's completely reasonable, therefore, that someone would take time to accept themselves and come out as gay while they live a heterosexual life first.

But the other way around? Why would someone live a gay life if they aren't gay? It doesn't make sense and really hasn't been shown to happen.

I've heard people testifying to both scenarios, so why only accept one and not the other? I'm not seeing a good argument for why you would do this.

You're creating a double standard here. You're suggesting no one would ever live a gay lifestyle if they were straight, but a gay person would live a straight lifestyle. If people are either born straight or gay then all things should be equal. Earlier it was being argued that a gay person can't decide to turn straight, it would be the same as a straight person turning gay, but here you suggest otherwise.

Social pressure is not enough to make me have a gay relationship, I would sooner be single, people aren't just "turning" straight because there is pressure, there is obviously more to this.

I think you either acknowledge that there is a an inclination to be straight, OR, you concede that it's equally likely for people to be confused about their orientation and some gay people may actually be straight, and vice versa. You can't have it both ways and say only gay people can think they are straight, but people are born this way.

One last thing to notice is that you are advocating nurture playing a role in social pressure. If it's possible that social pressure plays a part in encouraging straight behaviour in gay people, the opposite should be true as well. Simply because we don't actively see the reasons, doesn't imply they don't exist, they very well may exist in the form of parenting style, encouragement, early sexual experiences, etc.

You are either incredibly naieve or being deliberately obtuse if you believe that to be the case. Especially given that Ganstaman has basically explained the difference in the post prior to this.

Yes, and I disagree with him and I've shown why. If you would like to discuss this feel free to do so, give some of your views, but don't just say I'm obtuse and walk away, that does nothing to further this discussion.

Its logical, and possible, for it to go both ways.

But in reality, how likely is it for someone who is straight to pretend to be gay?


There are pressures on gay people to pretend to be straight, what pressures are there on straight people to pretend to be gay?

I guess they could think they are gay, and then decide they are mistaken, but something ( attraction to same sex, for example) must have made them think they were gay?

This at least is a reasonable position. I agree that it's less likely, but to say that it's not possible is not a logical stance given the former views espoused.

My point is that there may be other causes. If it is possible for a gay person to turn straight for reasons other than sexual attraction, it has to be possible for a straight person as well. That's all I'm saying really, that it's possible, even if less likely, but to just shut this down as a possibility seems incongruent with the nature argument, and highly biased.

The reason why you are getting such incredulous responses to this is because it's basically impossible to imagine someone living in the world who doesn't understand that being straight is 1000x more beneficial in society than being gay. So, unless they were simply a masochist, its incredibly hard for me to believe that someone would actively pretend to be gay if they weren't.

Explained at the end of this post.

There seems to be some confusion here. First, absolutely gay people would live a straight lifestyle by choice for the reasons I gave. Second, that doesn't mean they are choosing to BE straight or have turned straight. Sexual orientation is about desires, not actions.

I don't understand why you think all should be equal. There's far more reasons for someone who's gay to not accept/understand it themselves and to also lie about it to others than for someone who's straight (and to be quite honest, I don't know if there are any reasons on this side of the equation).

No, you are just underestimating the power of this pressure. We live in an entirely heteronormative society, and in many parts of even the most liberal of US states you are subject to many negative consequences for being openly gay. This goes much much deeper than peer pressure.

I don't get what that first sentence means -- nurture playing a role in social pressure? As for the rest here, you have to again realize that there's a difference between sexual behaviors and sexual orientation. I think that then fixes the misunderstanding.

I don't think any gay people are turning straight. I've already made a post on why it may appear that I'm wrong even though I'm not:

We are not talking about simply pretending. I personally would never have a sexual relationship with a man no matter how much social pressure was on me, most people wouldn't change sexual partners for this reason alone, it's clearly not the main reason for "pretending." If you are a straight male, ask yourself if you would have sex with a man because people frowned upon you having sex with a woman. You'd either put up with the criticism, have secret relationships, or remain single. You would never just decide to give in and have gay sex, that's absurd. It's definitely not the go-to response. So why is it just a given that gay people who are born gay so casually step into straight relationships because of the pressure? Something doesn't add up, there is clearly more to this if you are born gay or straight. It's just as difficult to believe someone who is gay would have straight sex only because of pressure, if they are indeed the same as straight people.

Pretending aside, I spoke about people who realized their sexual orientation was different than they thought. Have you ever heard of a marriage breaking up when one spouse discovers they are gay? So why can't a gay person discover they are straight? This has nothing to do with social pressure, if you accept one, you must accept the other. I have heard both sides give convincing accounts, you shouldn't dismiss only one side because the only evidence for "pretending" is social pressure, and there is no social pressure on the straight side. This means that you've discovered that the only possible way someone changes their sexual orientation is social pressure and nothing else, so since there is no pressure on the other side, it's not possible for them to change. Plus, these people aren't saying they were pretending, they are saying they were either confused, or had not realized it.

Why can't there be other factors at play that we don't recognize or see, and admit we don't have all the answers about nature vs nurture?

Again, I'm not arguing for or against these things, as much as I'm pointing out that within the argument that is being put forth here, you should equally accept people who were once gay and are now straight by the same token you do the other side.

You can say this very easily, because there IS no social pressure to be involved in a gay relationship.

It's not just about 'taking criticism' In certain cases, people's livelihoods, or even lives may be threatened.

Again this just seems to be you speaking from a position of being on the socially acceptable side.

Ganstaman, maybe we should start from scratch. (if you want, we can agree to disagree but I think we're talking past each other a little bit)

I've read your post, and your argument seems to only apply to people who choose to live the opposite lifestyle, but don't actually have such feelings. (because of pressure)

My argument was for people who seem to "realize" they are different than they thought.

Can we start here first? What are your thoughts on people who discover they are different? Do you even believe this is possible?

Also, I have to vehemently disagree with you about my having a sexual relationship with a man because of pressure. Religion aside, no amount of social pressure is going to make me, I'm just not wired that way. I would gladly pursue women in secret or remain single.

So what was all the gay sex about , if they suddenly "discover" they are straight? Were they pretending? Or were they actually attracted to the same sex? I dont see any other options?

If they were pretending, then yes, they werent gay, but I have never heard of anyone pretending to be gay.

If they were actually attracted to the same sex, then they havent discovered that they are straight, they have discovered that they are bisexual?