NationStates Jolt Archive

I recall a posting about how homosexuality is repeated in nature in animals and we see it happen other than human interaction. Anyone have the examples?

I recall a posting about how homosexuality is repeated in nature in animals and we see it happen other than human interaction. Anyone have the examples?
Babies are born with 2 heads or 3 arms. We, most of the time, take corrective measures through surgery.

Just a thought.

/me runs :p

It must be natural, or it wouldn't exist.

Unless you think homosexuals are supernatural, of course, but then you'd be both wrong and stupid.

Sure. And I have pointed this out often enough.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
Gay penguins

http://www.donshewey.com/1999_zine/biological_exuberance.html

loads of stuff, including apes, cats, and dogs

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Insects and birds


Any more?

if it exists in humans doesnt it have to be "natural"?

can we really do anything that is against our nature?

if it exists in humans doesnt it have to be "natural"?

can we really do anything that is against our nature?

No...its the christian fundeMENTALists...

OMG GEY PEEPOL!!! TIS UNNATURAL!!! BUUUUUUUUURNlol!!!

No...its the christian fundeMENTALists...

OMG GEY PEEPOL!!! TIS UNNATURAL!!! BUUUUUUUUURNlol!!!
Damn fags indeed.

No...its the christian fundeMENTALists...

OMG GEY PEEPOL!!! TIS UNNATURAL!!! BUUUUUUUUURNlol!!!



Omgz! T3H Christians sez we iz wrong!!!!111111 s700p1d Christians LOLORZ. God forgive me for sinking to your level :(

It is as natural as being born, because I believe Homosexuality is not made by choice, but they are born with it. I recall an experiment that was done not too long ago with straight and homosexual males and females, where they monitored their brain patterns while having the subjects breathe in male and female pheremones. The straight people brain patterns were more active breathing the opposite sex pheremones, while the homosexuals brain patterns were more active breathing the pheremones of the same sex. With this kind of evidence I would say that it is natural...well because nature let it happen.

It is natural to like a same-sex individual, any individual that is beautiful, for God's creation is beautiful and is meant to be admired. Recall all of Genesis chapter 1, where God calls all things and beings created beautiful (save man's loneliness in Gen. 2.18). What we like or dislike is innate, is wired in our DNA, in our flesh. We, therefore, shouldn't fight our esthetic urges to admire a beautiful man or woman since they're inborn.

What is not natural is to want to posses that beautiful individual whose beauty we admire, whether male or female, doesn't matter. For all possesiveness is selfish desire and all selfish desires are from Satan. God is all about being other-oriented, altruistic ("what can I do for you?"), while Satan, me-oriented, selfish ("how can I use others to get me pleasure?").

St. Paul sums up our struggle with the demonic temptations to comit sodomy or adultery, any sin of the flesh for that matter, as follows: "For our struggle is not with flesh and blood [i.e. innate admiration of all beautiful] but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits [i.e. demons and all hierarchies of fallen angels] in the heavens." (Ephes. 6:12)

In Christ,
Crisus Rex

-snip-

While I respect your opinion, I have the right to...

*streaks thread*

It is natural to like a same-sex individual, any individual that is beautiful, for God's creation is beautiful and is meant to be admired. Recall all of Genesis chapter 1, where God calls all things and beings created beautiful (save man's loneliness in Gen. 2.18). What we like or dislike is innate, is wired in our DNA, in our flesh. We, therefore, shouldn't fight our esthetic urges to admire a beautiful man or woman since they're inborn.

What is not natural is to want to posses that beautiful individual whose beauty we admire, whether male or female, doesn't matter. For all possesiveness is selfish desire and all selfish desires are from Satan. God is all about being other-oriented, altruistic ("what can I do for you?"), while Satan, me-oriented, selfish ("how can I use others to get me pleasure?").

St. Paul sums up our struggle with the demonic temptations to comit sodomy or adultery, any sin of the flesh for that matter, as follows: "For our struggle is not with flesh and blood [i.e. innate admiration of all beautiful] but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits [i.e. demons and all hierarchies of fallen angels] in the heavens." (Ephes. 6:12)

In Christ,
Crisus Rex
Woah, it's another one of them. Rare this time of year, trolling season's taken a toll on them.


In short: I don't need your bible to tell me how to live my life. If I feel like fucking men, I'm not going to let some 'book' that has dubious credibility stop me.

I recall a posting about how homosexuality is repeated in nature in animals and we see it happen other than human interaction. Anyone have the examples?

examples...ok...well in the Galapagos (sp? whatever) when i visited recently one of the things we did was go to a turtle sanctuary thing of isabella island. one of the things you could do there was walk around in this giant land tortise habitat thing...problem was the only female they had was currently quarentined and the males were all cooped up together...needless to say animals are not exactly concerned about public aperances.

oh and to all of you who said that it was immoral, sick twisted, perverted and similar, i hate to break it to yah but its a part of life, whether you agree with it or not doesn't really matter.

I had a couple of gay dogs once. They weren't even the same breed. It was the scandal of the backyard! :fluffle:

i recall reading a post saying that two homosexual male birds steal an egg and raises it as their own, and since there is two male birds, that chick learns to be stronger and healthier. where is that article?

w/e you're saying I hope u aren't claiming that homosexuality :mp5: is genetic... :sniper:



One of the most persistent and culturally damaging Homosexual Urban Legends is the erroneous claim by homosexual activists that they are "born gay" or that their sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence and is fixed and unchangeable.

One or both of these urban legends has been perpetuated not only by homosexual activist groups but by prestigious organizations like the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

The American Psychological Association, for example, features a Q&A section on its web site that deals with sexual orientation. To the question, "Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?" the APA answers: "No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

In a follow up question, "Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?" the APA answers: "No. … The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable."

Current research from professional organizations like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) dispute the APA's pro-homosexual position.

Regrettably, however, homosexuals have used this particular urban legend to fight for anti-discrimination laws and for "hate crime" laws that provide special legal protections for homosexuals not accorded to heterosexuals. They have also used this fraudulent claim to push for homosexual recruitment programs in public schools under the guise of providing "safe schools" for "homosexual" teenagers. Homosexuals have also demanded sensitivity training for those who are repelled by homosexual behavior. Currently, transgendered individuals (those who cross-dress or are undergoing sex change operations), are also now claiming to be "born transgender." Transgenders are demanding federal laws to protect them from societal disapproval. (See TVC's Special Report on this: "A Gender Identity Goes Mainstream.")

Great cultural and legal changes have taken place in our society because of this Homosexual Urban Legend-but it is slowly but surely being debunked. This is being done not only by conservative psychologists and psychiatrists, but by the admissions of homosexual researchers themselves.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, a NARTH associate, was one of the main forces behind the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).

Dr. Spitzer is now convinced that men and women who have a homosexual orientation can change through therapy. His most recent findings were published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417).

NARTH summarized his findings on its web site. Dr. Spitzer interviewed some 200 men and women who reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted five years or longer. According to Spitzer, his findings show that "the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation."

One of the most compelling articles to dispel the notion that homosexuality is genetically determined, fixed, and unchangeable is: "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy," by Drs. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson. This essay is published on the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality web site.

The authors of this study carefully quote a number of homosexual researchers who have worked for years to locate a "gay gene" or some other genetic basis for homosexuality. They have failed and are now admitting that such evidence may never be found.

Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a bit of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome. He has written: "Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. . . . I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay, who studied the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men noted: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality. Catholic Psychiatrists Offer Insights

In June, 2002, Catholic psychiatrists with the Catholic Medical Association in Pewaukee, Wisconsin, sent a letter of concern to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and offered to help the Catholic Church deal with its scandals over priests with same-sex attractions. Many of these priests are not pedophiles in the clinical sense or the legal sense of the word. These are pederasts or homosexuals who are attracted to teenage boys or young adults.

The letter of concern notes: "There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, identical twins would always have the same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have shown that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies documenting change of sexual attraction pattern (see 'Homosexuality and Hope,' available at www.cathmed.org). This entire statement is available on the Catholic Medical Association web site. This association is helping to debunk the notion that individuals are "born gay." If Not Genes,
Then What Causes Homosexuality?

Regent University's Law Review for Spring, 2002, is entirely devoted to a discussion of various aspects of homosexuality, including the origins and causes of homosexual behaviors. The Law Review includes a study, " Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?" by Dr. A. Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen.

After discussing the lack of evidence on the genetic origins of homosexuality, Dr. Byrd and his associate detail the various environmental factors that can lead a person into a homosexual lifestyle.

Gender Confusion: Dr. George Rekers, an expert on Gender Identity Disorders, is author of dozens of scholarly research papers on homosexuality and wrote Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality in 1982. He is also editor of Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, published in 1995. Dr. Rekers stated in 1995, that "Gender nonconformity in childhood may be the single common observable factor associated with homosexuality. Some of the typical childhood factors leading to homosexuality are: feeling of being different from other children; perception of father as being distant, uninvolved and unapproving; perception of mother being too close, too involved; diminished or distorted masculinity or femininity; premature introduction to sexuality; and gender confusion.

Failure To Internalize Maleness: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has written: "Homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of problems in family relationships, particularly between father and son. As a result of failure with father, the boy does not fully internalize male gender identity, and develops homosexuality. This is the most commonly seen clinical model."

Dr. George Rekers, writing in Growing Up Straight, observes: "Many studies of homosexual patients as well as of nonpatient homosexuals have established a classic pattern of background family relations. The most frequent family pattern reported from the male homosexuals includes a binding, intimate mother in combination with a hostile, detached father."

Sexual Abuse By Same-Sex Predator: In studies conducted by Diana Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as non-molested boys to become homosexuals.

Dr. Gregory Dickson recently completed a doctoral dissertation on the pattern of relationships between mothers and their male homosexual sons. His paper is entitled: "An Empirical Study of the Mother/Son Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult Male Homosexuality: An Object Relations Perspective."

Dr. Dickson's study is reviewed on the NARTH web site. His study sheds new light on the relationship between early childhood sexual abuse and a child's later involvement in homosexual behaviors. According to Dickson, an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.

His study affirms previous findings of Dr. David Finkelhor (1984), which found that boys victimized by older men were four times more likely to be currently involved in homosexual behaviors than were non-victims. As Finkelhor observed: "It may be common for a boy who has been involved in an experience with an older man to label himself as homosexual (1) because he has had a homosexual experience and (2) because he was found to be sexually attractive by a man. Once he labels himself homosexual, the boy may begin to behave consistently with the role and gravitate toward homosexual activity." (Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, New York: The Free Press, 1984).

Dr. Dickson's study suggests that sexual abuse should be considered in evaluating the factors that contribute to the development of adult homosexual behaviors. Dickson writes: "An experience of sexual abuse could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for male affection, attention, and connection."

Dr. Dickson continues: "Given the relational deficits [with his mother] experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally, simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their first form of adult male affection, as well as something relational that is not shared in common with his mother."

Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey, has written: "…In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally) fathers: stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes find these men have had early exposure to pornography…." Homosexuals Are Made, Not Born

In summary, the most credible research to date on homosexuality-and research conducted years ago-demonstrates that no one is "born gay." The homosexual is suffering from a developmental problem, which frequently starts out in childhood as gender confusion, family dysfunction, or molestation.

From a Christian perspective, homosexual behavior is also labeled a sin and a sexual perversion. It is a behavior that must be repented of. The sin is akin to allowing oneself to become addicted to pornography or to drugs. These behaviors can be overcome-but the person must want to change!

The Bible-both the Old and New Testaments-clearly condemn homosexuality as a sin and a sexual perversion. Dr. Robert Gagnon, assistant professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary has written a definitive text on how God views homosexuality. In The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, Gagnon proves beyond doubt that the Bible consistently condemns homosexual behavior but calls the homosexual-and other sinners-to repentance and salvation. Gagnon urges Christians to resist the homosexual agenda but to love the sinner by "befriending the homosexual while withholding approval of homosexual behavior."

There is hope for homosexuals through developing a relationship with Jesus Christ, through both religious and secular counseling programs, and through support groups that provide accountability for those struggling with same-sex attractions and self-destructive behaviors.

Organizations like Exodus International, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, NARTH, Reality Resources, and others can provide the resources that homosexuals need to be set free from these self-destructive sexual behaviors. Freedom is possible for those who wish to be free!

I read a post on gay giraffes. Taking it up the buttshaft.

Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre in Spain:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

Simon LeVay (A Homosexual "Scientist")

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason. Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent. And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.

Cesar Ades ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil:

"When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex. Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure. The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature."

The "Homosexual" Animal Myth is one invented by Homosexual Activists who see their perversion and immorality in everything. Just like Animal Rights Activists they falsely read human behaviors into animals.

Even wacked out "Scientists" like Bruce Bagemihl who wrote "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" admitted:

"Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena. We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation. With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts). With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."

All of the "Homosexual Animal" studies are done by "scientists" with a very specific agenda, who read human behaviors into the behaviors of animals. They want a specific agenda to be true, so they make claims then call them "science".

Gays/lesbos = SICK and PERVERT!!! :gundge:

If u disagree then you are proprably a arse rammer your self and or just NOT normal, period.

Forget all that liberal lefty weed smoking BS of "tolerance" and "love everyone" :rolleyes: even when they are sickening ABOMINATIONS against mother nature. :eek:

It is as natural as being born, because I believe Homosexuality is not made by choice, but they are born with it. I recall an experiment that was done not too long ago with straight and homosexual males and females, where they monitored their brain patterns while having the subjects breathe in male and female pheremones. The straight people brain patterns were more active breathing the opposite sex pheremones, while the homosexuals brain patterns were more active breathing the pheremones of the same sex. With this kind of evidence I would say that it is natural...well because nature let it happen.

While there is a lot of evidence that many people are born homosexual, you shouldn't make blanket statements. Not all math professors were born as math geniuses, though if you did a study you would see many of them that were. Most homosexuals are natural, but many have become homosexual over time.

Is this thread some big giant troll party? I don't think I've seen a thread with so many 1-posters...

Gays/lesbos = SICK and PERVERT!!! :gundge:

If u disagree then you are proprably a arse rammer your self and or just NOT normal, period.

Forget all that liberal lefty weed smoking BS of "tolerance" and "love everyone" :rolleyes: even when they are sickening ABOMINATIONS against mother nature. :eek:
are you wearing clothes?

'mother nature' didnt intend you to wear clothes.

Is this thread some big giant troll party? I don't think I've seen a thread with so many 1-posters...
Actually, my "Worst American President" thread had more one posters than I've ever seen on ANY thread. Hate brings people out of the woodwork.

How "eloquent"....

So, what about dolphins, who can be homosexual and mate for pleasure as has been documented. What about the lesbian hedgehogs who engage in mutual cunnilingus. What could the possible attraction in that be if they feel no pleasure? Come on... overgeneralised statements disguised within pseudoscience and condescencion do not an argument make. Especially as there is no scientific evidence that animals do not feel pleasure. He merely stated it as fact. I call BS.


Secondly, you have yet to prove that homosexuality is immoral, you merely make statements that assume it. If you're inclined to be a christian, you're doing a bad job of it. Christians preach love, etc, and not meaningless discrimination. In fact, surely if your God has a problem with it, then you are the person with the least authority to speak of it? Unless you presume to dictate how your God feels on issues? That's a pretty big risk....

"snip"

So what about the phermone experiments in humans? If a similar experiment was done with animals, would that be valid proof? And by the way the evolution argument doesn't hold water. Creatures aren't perfect reproduction machines, there are many things that get in the way, and homosexuality may be one of them.

Is Mithra kidding? It's hard to take a post with a high smilie consentration seriously.

I'll quote myself from another thread:
From a biological POV, couplings of males and females are the norm - same sex copulation is an aberration (and before you get your PC knickers in a knot, look up the dictionary meaning of aberration)...

And before you cite examples of the animal kingdom, homosexuality in the animal kingdom is a rarity. "Exclusively homosexual" animals are so rare as to be almost nonexistant - the vast majority of sexually aberrant behaviour in the animal kingdom is "bisexual" i.e. animals "do it" with either sex because it feels good.

This has nothing to do with my personal views of homosexuality - I have no problem with gay people or their lifestyles. I am speaking purely from a biological point of view.

whao there, with so many examples of homosexual behavior in animals how can you said its not there. and if homosexuality is genetic, those people would have died out generations ago if they never got a chance to mate according to darwin's theory. I'm just trying to gather evidence that it is everywhere in nature.

Even if it is unnatural, who the bloody hell cares? Are you really so bored and nosy that you feel the need to pry into what happens in my bedroom? Does how I derive pleasure and choose my "mates" really matter to you, at all?

(I didn't read the incredibly long posts)

I think I turned a teenage guy into a bisexual.

I didn't mean to, he just kinda thought I was groovy, he was ok, and at the time me and my male love were going at it like bunnies and he knew about it. Then he started saying he was gay, and we even told each other that we loved each (in a close-friends kind of way) and he's now decided he's bisexual.

I think my parents divorce had something to do with becoming sorta gay myself, I can't get into any kind of normal in depth 'lets move in and maybe get married someday' relationship with a girl, possibly because of how much heartbreak my old man suffered during and after the divorce. My mother has had about 20 boyfriends since then but my dad has been all alone.

The point is, I think I turned a guy gay is that bad?

Here's a random thought:

Maybe homosexuality is completely natural...a natural way of keeping certain detrimental traits out of the gene pool. Maybe Mother Nature took a look at your genetic code when you were gestating and was like "HOLY SHIT! You are FUCKED up. There is NO way you shoud breed." and went in and inserted the "gay gene".

Just a thought. :p

Secondly, you have yet to prove that homosexuality is immoral, you merely make statements that assume it. If you're inclined to be a christian, you're doing a bad job of it. Christians preach love, etc, and not meaningless discrimination. In fact, surely if your God has a problem with it, then you are the person with the least authority to speak of it? Unless you presume to dictate how your God feels on issues? That's a pretty big risk....

Just wondering, how besides in a few joke posts was morality ever involved in this debate? The question is whether homosexuality is natural, which has nothing to do with whether or not its good.

Can we please keep the morality factor out of this debate?

whao there, with so many examples of homosexual behavior in animals how can you said its not there. and if homosexuality is genetic, those people would have died out generations ago if they never got a chance to mate according to darwin's theory. I'm just trying to gather evidence that it is everywhere in nature.

Well, humans would mate with either when it was necessary, whether they enjoy it or not. Secondly, it could be a recessive gene, as Neo-Anarchists pointed out, coming and going every second or third generation, and not occuring with every one of the offspring. It would neatly explain how homosexuals have non-gay (well, sometimes not) parents.

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

Being an identical twin doesnt mean you are 100% genetically alike. There are always genetic differences when it comes to people including twins. That statement about how if the study was true then all identical twins would be homosexual is bullshit.

whao there, with so many examples of homosexual behavior in animals how can you said its not there. and if homosexuality is genetic, those people would have died out generations ago if they never got a chance to mate according to darwin's theory. I'm just trying to gather evidence that it is everywhere in nature.

When I was 15, one of my teachers lost his job after a journalist caught him in a public toilet engaged in sexual activity with a male nurse (No, it wasn't childish rumours, it was all over the newspapers). He was married and had two children. Therefore, I would assume being homosexual doesn't prohibit one from passing on one's genes to any great extent.

and if homosexuality is genetic, those people would have died out generations ago if they never got a chance to mate according to darwin's theory..
i love it when people say this.

go read about recessive genes

I'm sure that some people choose to be gay, or at least try, but I'll bet that it doesn't often work out. The lasting ones didn't choose.

The point is, I think I turned a guy gay is that bad?

Both sides have firsthand (or at least accurate secondhand) accounts now. That's cool. That means my side is right, suckers.

Anyway, there's no problem with changing someone's sexuality if they are open to that change. I mean if they were a neocon evangelical that would set up some pretty bad psychological effects, but it doesn't sound like that is the case.

It is as natural as being born, because I believe Homosexuality is not made by choice, but they are born with it. I recall an experiment that was done not too long ago with straight and homosexual males and females, where they monitored their brain patterns while having the subjects breathe in male and female pheremones. The straight people brain patterns were more active breathing the opposite sex pheremones, while the homosexuals brain patterns were more active breathing the pheremones of the same sex. With this kind of evidence I would say that it is natural...well because nature let it happen.

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.
In June, 2002, Catholic psychiatrists with the Catholic Medical Association in Pewaukee, Wisconsin, sent a letter of concern to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and offered to help the Catholic Church deal with its scandals over priests with same-sex attractions. Many of these priests are not pedophiles in the clinical sense or the legal sense of the word. These are pederasts or homosexuals who are attracted to teenage boys or young adults.

The letter of concern notes: "There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, identical twins would always have the same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have shown that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies documenting change of sexual attraction pattern (see 'Homosexuality and Hope,' available at www.cathmed.org). This entire statement is available on the Catholic Medical Association web site. This association is helping to debunk the notion that individuals are "born gay." If Not Genes,
Then What Causes Homosexuality?

Mithra... While most people will say that you're entitled to your opinions,
when they say such a thing they generally aren't referring to the opinions
that ooze prejudice, hatred, and overall idiocy.

I'm not saying you're an idiot, because I don't think this forum should
be used for the purposes of insulting anyone, their beliefs, their political,
religious, or sexual orientations, or anything else. However you are
obviously prejudiced because you're afraid of anyone who is different
from your preconceived notions of what is normal, as has probably been
ground into your skull by whatever family and environment you grew up
in.

So if you really can't control your prejudice and displays of ignorance,
then please stay off the forums until you attain some self-control, or go
find forums where like-minded people won't be offended by your insults
and small-mindedness. Of course, doing the latter will probably just
reinforce your malficent behavior, which isn't a good thing, so I'd recommend
the first option, involving self-control.

Therapy might be a good idea too.

That's all.

Kaole Tsutako

I'm sure that some people choose to be gay, or at least try, but I'll bet that it doesn't often work out. The lasting ones didn't choose.

Just in loyalty to some of my lesbian friends I'm going to add the word usually to the end of that.

Which is why I said 'usually' under the choice catagory. I'm just saying that both 'varieties' are out there.

So, what about dolphins, who can be homosexual and mate for pleasure as has been documented. What about the lesbian hedgehogs who engage in mutual cunnilingus. What could the possible attraction in that be if they feel no pleasure? Come on... overgeneralised statements disguised within pseudoscience and condescencion do not an argument make. Especially as there is no scientific evidence that animals do not feel pleasure. He merely stated it as fact. I call BS.

The Homosexual "Scientist" answers this one:

"Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena. We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation. With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts). With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."

Can you speak and communicate with any animal? Can that animal tell you why it is engaging in any behavior? No, hence, you are simply assuming, using human bias, as to why an animal engages in such a behavior.

Christians preach love, etc, and not meaningless discrimination. In fact, surely if your God has a problem with it, then you are the person with the least authority to speak of it? Unless you presume to dictate how your God feels on issues?

Christians do not preach acceptance and embrace of evil and perversion. In fact, Christians are commanded:

Amo 5:14 Seek good and not evil, that you may live; and so Jehovah, the God of Hosts, shall be with you, as you have spoken.
Amo 5:15 Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate. It may be that the Lord Jehovah of Hosts will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.

Joh 7:24 Do not judge according to sight, but judge righteous judgment.

1Ti 5:20 Those who sin, rebuke before all, so that the rest also may fear.

2Ti 4:2 preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.

Tit 2:15 Speak these things, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.

Also, In regards to this specific issue:

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination to God.

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.
Rom 1:25 For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife.
Mar 10:8 And the two of them shall be one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put apart.

Mat 19:4 And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female",
Mat 19:5 and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.

Also, To head off any of the typical leftists revision of "Judge not lest ye be Judged" and the account of the Adulterous woman:

Bible-Haters/Atheists/Skeptics hate being told about sin. They want to silence anyone who speaks out against sin (as the Bible Commands) so they attempt to twist to Bible to accomplish this.

From the Passage on the Adulterous Woman.

In the account of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-12), many believe they have found proof that Jesus “overlooked” the woman’s sin while forbidding the Pharisees to condemn her according to the Law of Moses. Discerning Bible students ought to be greatly interested in the facts of this case, for Jesus’ words and actions in this passage are often misrepresented.

Scripture tells us that Pharisees and scribes were often antagonistic toward Jesus (cf. Matt 22:15-46). John 8 records that the enemies of Jesus had found a woman caught in the very act of adultery (John 8:4). They brought her to the Lord and asked Him for a judgment: “Moses, in the Law, commanded us that such should be stoned, but what do You say?” (John 8:5). Jesus was seemingly in a dilemma: to exercise capital punishment without consent of the Roman authorities would put Jesus in violation of Roman law. On the other hand, if Jesus refused to obey the Law of Moses, how could He still claim to be the Messiah? Thus, the enemies of our Lord thought they had created an unanswerable question. However Jesus answered, they would have the means to rid themselves of Him.

Bible study reveals a number of problems with this case that are not readily evident from John 8:1-12. First, the Law of Moses proscribed capital punishment for both parties in an adulterous union (cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut 22:22). In the case described in John 8, where was the man? The Pharisees claimed to have taken this woman in the act of adultery, and yet they conveniently ignored her partner in the sinful union. Second, notice again that the Law of Moses commanded death to BOTH of the parties involved. If Jesus and the Pharisees were to follow the Law concerning this matter, they could never execute just ONE party and claim that justice had been done! Third, it is possible that the woman’s partner in adultery was among her accusers! Jesus’ only statement to these men was, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (John 8:7).

Scripture records that they were thus, “convicted by their conscience,” and each Pharisee and scribe quietly slipped away. Based on this statement, there is a distinct possibility that one of the guilty parties in the adulterous union was standing in accusation against the woman. Notice, however, that Jesus was not forbidding all judgment! Because the scribes and Pharisees were interested in vengeance rather than justice, any judgment they pronounced would have been tainted. God expects us to speak out against sin (Jude 3).

As the Lord stood and looked around, He saw that the accusers had all departed. He asked her, “has no one condemned you?” (John 8:10). When the woman answered negatively, Jesus declared, “neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Notice that Jesus did NOT say He overlooked this woman’s sin; rather He was pronouncing judgment according to the Law of Moses.

The rest of your quotes are a twisting of "Judge not Lest Ye be Judged."

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that you may not be judged.
Mat 7:2 For with whatever judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with whatever measure you measure out, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why do you look on the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull the splinter out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?
Mat 7:5 Hypocrite! First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye.

People use Matt 7:1 out of context to justify evil and things that God hates. By ripping verse 1 out of context atheists/skeptics/bible-haters attempt to justify all manner of perversions. Wrongly using Matt 7:1 to justify evil is one of the great deceptions of these end times.

The fact is, This passage doesn't speak of righteous Judgement, It isn't talking about speaking out against sin. It is talking about being a Hypocrite. (Telling someone about a sin but secretly doing that same sin yourself.)

If you judge someone for being a thief, yet secretly are a theif too, the manner in which you judge the thief will come back to judge you. (Your sin will find you out.) The Bible teaches us to judge sin, we are not to tolerate evil, we are to rebuke, reprove and exhort.

You cannot speak out against sin that you do yourself.

This passage in Romans Sheds further light on this situation:

Rom 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, everyone who judges; for in that in which you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge do the same things.
Rom 2:2 But know that the judgment of God is according to truth on those who practice such things.
Rom 2:3 And, O man, the one judging those who do such things, and practice them, do you think this, that you shall escape the judgment of God?

Before a person speaks out against sin, It is very important for a person to first judge themselves to make sure they are not guilty of the same sins.

THAT is what the passages are really talking about. Not what atheists/skeptics/bible-haters want to twist them to mean.

Nowhere does Christianity teach embrace and acceptance of sin. No where are Christians called to overlook peversion and accept and embrace evil.

Indeed, doing so is not Love. It is far from it.

True Love sometimes is Tough.

Mithra... While most people will say that you're entitled to your opinions,
when they say such a thing they generally aren't referring to the opinions
that ooze prejudice, hatred, and overall idiocy.

I'm not saying you're an idiot, because I don't think this forum should
be used for the purposes of insulting anyone, their beliefs, their political,
religious, or sexual orientations, or anything else. However you are
obviously prejudiced because you're afraid of anyone who is different
from your preconceived notions of what is normal, as has probably been
ground into your skull by whatever family and environment you grew up
in.

So if you really can't control your prejudice and displays of ignorance,
then please stay off the forums until you attain some self-control, or go
find forums where like-minded people won't be offended by your insults
and small-mindedness. Of course, doing the latter will probably just
reinforce your malficent behavior, which isn't a good thing, so I'd recommend
the first option, involving self-control.

Therapy might be a good idea too.

That's all.

Kaole Tsutako


sry I don't mean to be an ass but, did u mean "maleficent" ?

Homosexuals are evil?

NOBODY EXPECTS THE HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST GROUPS!

Why is it when there is a "it does not exist" there invariably has to be somebody declared as a "homosexual" scientist?

Is National Geographic a Homosexual front?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

For all the claims of an agenda, I find it amusing that some Religous based studies are mentioned.

Something to consider:

You have scientists all over the spectrum on issues. Just because one or two says it don't exist, don't think they are right.

They have to present the data for their claims.

Ah well......

Homosexuals are evil?
No. Only their penii and anuses are evil.

The rest of them tend to be quite nice...with fava beans and a nice chianti.

:p

Research Summary:
Joseph Berger
The Psychotherapeutic Treatment of Male Homosexuality

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Author and Source:
Joseph Berger
American Journal of Psychotherapy, 48(2), 251-261, (1994).
Brief Description:
Describes three cases with male patients. In two of these cases, the "abortion of a pregnancy conceived by the male patient may have led to the patient 'coming out'" (p. 251), or turning from heterosexuality to homosexuality.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
Varied. Two clients entered therapy due to work-related issues; one due to a failed heterosexual encounter.
Stated Definition of Change:
Not specified.
Actual Change:
Change in Homosexual Behaviour (eliminated)
Change in Heterosexual Behaviour (commenced)
Change in Homosexual Fantasy (decreased)
Description of Method: Psychotherapy.
Length of Treatment:
In two cases, lengthy. In one case, therapy was terminated early.
Follow-up:
Almost 20 years for "C"; no data was given for other patients.
Summary of Results:
Client "R" was initially heterosexual in behaviour with no homosexuality mentioned. His heterosexual behaviour stopped, and his homosexual attraction and behaviour began, after the young woman with whom he had enjoyed a successful sex life became pregnant and got an abortion. After therapy, he returned to heterosexual behaviour and relationships, and has only occasional homosexual fantasies.
Client "D" was "quite heterosexual and had had a number of successful sexual relationships with women " (p. 254). After a women who had become pregnant by him had an abortion, he became exclusively homosexual. He discontinued therapy early.
An unnamed female client, briefly mentioned, had an abortion after becoming pregnant. After that, she had only homosexual relationships for 25 years. She entered therapy after "experiencing an upsurge of heterosexual fantasies" (p. 256).
Because clients "R" and "D" and the unnamed female clients were not initially exclusively homosexual (K6) or predominantly homosexual (K5), they will not be considered further.
Client "C" had homosexual fantasies and sexual encounters since adolescence, with no heterosexual behaviour reported. As an adult, he attempted to develop heterosexual relationships due to family and cultural pressures. These were not successful. After a long therapy, he married, fathered three children, and is having a "heterosexually fulfilling and enjoyable life" (p. 255). Some occasional homosexual fantasies are reported.
Discussion of Relevant Results:
While Berger does not specifically state that "C"'s homosexuality from adolescence to his mid-30's was exclusive, there is enough other evidence in the text ("numerous homosexual fantasies," frequent "homosexual encounters in such places as bathhouses," no report of heterosexual behaviour or interest) to consider him at least predominantly homosexual (K5).
After therapy, "C" is married, involved in heterosexual behaviour, and not involved in homosexual behaviour.
The "numerous" homosexual fantasies have now become "occasional fleeting homosexual fantasies" (p. 255).
No clear statements are made about his attractions, nor as to whether he now also has heterosexual fantasies.
Thus, we can only say that he experienced a change in behaviour from homosexual to heterosexual. This change has an almost 20 year follow-up period.
Strengths:
Lengthy follow-up on client "C".
Limitations and Shortcomings:
Greater detail on the subjects' sexual histories and Kinsey-type ratings before and after therapy would have been helpful.

---------------------------------------------------

Research Summary:
David H. Barlow and W. Stewart Agras
Fading to Increase Heterosexual Responsiveness in Homosexuals

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Author and Source:
David H. Barlow and W. Stewart Agras
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6(3), 355-366, 1973.
Brief Description:
Barlow and Agras used a fading technique to increase heterosexual responsiveness in three clients.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
Increased heterosexual responsiveness, as "measured by penile responses and reports of behavior" (abstract, p. 355).
Stated Definition of Change:
Not specified.
Actual Change:
Change in Heterosexual Behaviour (commenced)
Change in Homosexual Attraction (decreased or eliminated)
Change in Heterosexual Attraction (commenced)
Change in Heterosexual Fantasies (commenced)
Partial Sexual Orientation Shift
Description of Method:
First, each subject had six sessions of "baseline procedures" to determine how aroused they were by various slides of men and women prior to starting treatment. These procedures simply involved showing subjects slides of nude men and women while recording their penile responses (how erect they became in response to each slide).
For the treatment:
Fading sessions were held in the afternoon: a slide of a nude male was gradually faded out while a slide of a nude female was gradually faded in. This was done six times per session. The speed of the fading was controlled by how arousing the subject found the picture. The same nude male slide and nude female slide were used for all the fading sessions.
Generalization tests were done in the morning sessions: During these, the subject was shown three male slides and three female slides chosen randomly from a group of 30 male slides and 30 female slides which he had found most attractive or least unattractive. Each of these six were shown to him in random order for two minutes, during which time penile circumference was monitored.
Some control procedures were also used, as Barlow and Agras wanted to study the effects of the fading. Subjects were also asked to keep a record of fantasies and urges during the treatment period.
Length of Treatment:
Six sessions of baseline procedures, followed by 4 to 17 half-hour treatment sessions. Subject 3, who experienced a partial shift in sexual orientation, attended 17 half-hour sessions (105 trials) of fading sequences.
Follow-up:
One-, three- and nine-month follow-up sessions.
Summary of Results:
Subject 1 was predominantly homosexual (K5) or exclusively homosexual (K6) prior to treatment. He had occasional contact with female prostitutes, but not in the last 5 years, during which he had only been involved in homosexual behaviour. Post-treatment, he still had strong homosexual attractions and was not interacting with women. "In fact, he had seldom left his home" during the year since treatment ended (p. 363). He will not be considered further here.
Subject 2 was mostly homosexual with a definite response to the opposite sex (K4) or predominantly homosexual (K5) prior to treatment. From the information given, we cannot conclusively decide which of the two Kinsey ratings is more accurate. On the one hand, he had been involved in homosexual behaviour (usually anal intercourse) for 6 years, had exclusively homosexual fantasies while masturbating, and "currently reported a stronger interest in men" (p. 355). On the other hand, he had occasionally engaged in heterosexual intercourse and the word "currently" in the previous quote leaves the possibility open that at other times, he had a stronger interest in women. More information about the prior heterosexual intercourse (for example, the reasons for it, whether he found pleasure in it, whether he fantasized about men or women during it) would have been helpful.
Subject 2 dated and had heterosexual intercourse after treatment ended. At the nine-month follow-up, he "reported strong heterosexual interests and behavior, no subjective homosexual arousal, and was considering marriage" (p. 364)
However, because he may be K4 pre-treatment, he will not be considered further here.
Subject 3 was exclusively homosexual (K6) prior to treatment. He was, as Barlow and Agras put it, "a 29-yr-old, exclusive homosexual with a 14-yr history of homosexual behavior" (p. 356). He had never been sexually involved with women. He had dated women "on important occasions, despite the fact that it made him uneasy and anxious" (p. 356). His fantasies were exclusively homosexual (implicit in the statement on p. 362 that says "he reported heterosexual urges and fantasies for the first time").
Results from Generalization Test Sessions (arousal was measured in terms of "average penile circumference expressed as a percentage of full erection;" higher percentages therefore indicate greater arousal. p. 316):

Phase of Treatment: Heterosexual Arousal: Homosexual Arousal:
Baseline <10% 76%
Fade 45% 68%
Stop Fading
(control) 10% 75%
Fade 52% 62%
First Month
Follow-up 65% 30%

Based on discussion of data on pages 361 and 364.

During treatment, subject 3 had heterosexual "urges and fantasies for the first time" (p. 362). Post-treatment, subject 3 "successfully engaged in heterosexual intercourse for the first time and repeated it up to five times a week" (p. 364). As evidenced by the table above, levels of arousal had changed from the baseline to the one-month follow-up. The client reported no homosexual arousal at the three-month follow-up. As well, at both the three-month and nine-month follow-ups, reports of frequent heterosexual intercourse were confirmed by his girlfriend.
Discussion of Relevant Results:
Subject 3 was initially exclusively homosexual (K6).
During or after treatment, subject 3 for the first time experienced heterosexual fantasy, attraction and sexual behaviour including intercourse. Intercourse occured frequently, was reported at all three follow-up intervals, and was confirmed by his girlfriend. No clear statements are made as to whether he still has homosexual fantasies. As well, it is unclear whether the statement that he had "no homosexual arousal" (p. 364) means that he was not attracted to men at all, or whether he was just not attracted to the point of being physically aroused. Thus, while it is possible that he is now exclusively heterosexual (K0), the more conservative position will be taken that he is predominantly heterosexual (K1).
Because of a shift from K6 to K1, subject 3 is said to have experienced a partial shift in sexual orientation.
Strengths:
The authors' attempt, successful in one case and not in another, to confirm with the subjects' girlfriends that intercourse had actually taken place.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
Lack of Kinsey-type ratings for all subjects.
Some lack of clarity in terms of the subjects' attraction, fantasy, and behaviour.
Relatively short follow-up period.
Reviewed and Critiqued in:
Throckmorton 1998.
----------------------------------------------

Both sides have firsthand (or at least accurate secondhand) accounts now. That's cool. That means my side is right, suckers.

Anyway, there's no problem with changing someone's sexuality if they are open to that change. I mean if they were a neocon evangelical that would set up some pretty bad psychological effects, but it doesn't sound like that is the case.
I think he only thought about being gay because I was gay, and he liked me.

"Imitation is the greatest form of flattery"

In a perverted way, I'm glad he's open, but that's a pretty fucked up way to think. He's kinda cool, but he's too sensitive, me and my friends would say something like, "pass me the ketchup bitch" but he takes that as an insult.

I'm still not reading any of the really long posts.

Being an identical twin doesnt mean you are 100% genetically alike.

Yes it does. Monozygotic twins are genetically identical unless there has been a mutation after the zygote has divided.

Research Summary:
Irving Bieber et al.
Homosexuality: a Psychoanalytic Study

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Authors and Source:
Irving Bieber, Harvey J. Dain, Paul R. Dince, Marvin G. Drellich, Henry G. Grand, Ralph H. Gundlach, Malvina W. Kremer, Alfred H. Rifkin, Cornelia B. Wilbur, Toby B. Bieber.
Homosexuality: a Psychoanalytic Study. New York: Basic Books, 1962.
Follow-up data is from Bieber 1967 and Bieber 1987.
Brief Description:
This study compares 106 male homosexuals and 100 male heterosexuals, all in treatment with members of the Society of Medical Psychoanalysts.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
Varied. "The initial complaints of the homosexual patients. . . included sexual difficulties, anxiety, various neurotic symptoms, work inhibitions, and so forth" (p. 28).
Stated Definition of Change:
Not specified.
Actual Change:
Change in Homosexual Behaviour.
Change in Heterosexual Behaviour.
Description of Method:
Fifty-eight psychoanalysts filled out questionnaires on 106 male homosexuals who were in psychoanalytic treatment. Bieber and his associates studied the results of these questionnaires.
In terms of sexual behaviour, 72 of the men were exclusively homosexual, 30 were bisexual, and 4 were not sexually active at the time of the study. 64 of these men wanted to overcome homosexuality, 32 did not, and ten did not answer either way (Table II-4, p. 29).
Length of Treatment:
At the time of the first questionnaire, 60 men had undergone less than 200 hours of treatment, and 46 had undergone over 200 hours of treatment. For some men, the actual length was less than 25 hours; for some, it was over 450 hours (p. 32).
Follow-up:
A five-year follow-up was done on 15 of the 29 individuals who were exclusively heterosexual at the end of treatment. These 15 individuals had all kept in contact with their psychoanalysts.
Summary of Results:
Of the 72 patients who had been exclusively homosexual at the start of treatment:
42 remained exclusively homosexual
2 were sexually inactive
14 were bisexual
14 were exclusively heterosexual
Of the 30 patients who had been bisexual at the start of treatment:
2 were sexually inactive
13 remained bisexual
15 became exclusively heterosexual
Of the four homosexual patients who had been sexually inactive at the start of treatment:
1 was exclusively homosexual
2 remained sexually inactive
1 was bisexual (all data from Table XI-1, p. 276)
Thus, at the time of the study, 29 patients who had been bisexual or exclusively homosexual had become exclusively heterosexual. A five-year follow-up was done on 15 of these patients: 12 of these continued to be exclusively heterosexual, and three "remained predominantly heterosexual, with sporadic homosexual episodes under situations of stress" (Bieber 1967, p. 972; Bieber 1987).
Discussion of Relevant Results:
Our focus here is on the 72 patients who had been exclusively homosexual at the start of treatment. It is claimed that 14 of these had become exclusively heterosexual by the time of the study.
We are not told whether patients who had become exclusively heterosexual still had homosexual fantasies and/or attractions. As well, the inclusion of the "inactive" category (Table XI-1, p. 276) puts the focus on behaviour rather than attraction and fantasy.
Thus, we can only claim that 14 patients who had been exclusively homosexual were exclusively heterosexual in behaviour at the time of the study.
As discussed above, twelve of the fifteen patients who were followed for five years remained consistently heterosexual. According to Bieber (1987, p. 424), seven of these twelve had been exclusively homosexual before treatment. Thus, seven persons who were initially exclusively homosexual, remained exclusively heterosexual in behaviour for at least five years. (Note: Bieber 1967 does not distinguish between those who were initially exclusively homosexual and those who were initially bisexual.)
It is possible that some of the patients who were exclusively homosexual at the start of treatment experienced a partial or full shift in sexual orientation. However, based on the previous three items, there is no data to confirm or deny such a possibility.
Strengths:
Good sample size.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
The questionnaires were filled out by the psychoanalysts who had seen the patients. The patient was not asked these questions directly, nor were outside sources used to confirm the answers.
The questionnaire asked general questions about fantasies and dreams. It did not ask about changes in these, nor whether at the time of the study they were directed to the same sex and/or the opposite sex. To determine change, the questionnaire only asked about the patient's sexual status at last contact, using the categories of exclusively homosexual, bisexual, exclusively heterosexual, and inactive (p. 347). The questionnaire itself did not provide definitions of these terms.
Bieber sometimes groups patients who initially were bisexual, together with those who initially were exclusively homosexual (see data about fantasy and dream content in Table IX-1B, p. 222, and follow-up statistics in Bieber 1967). Data should be separate for these two groups.
Cross References:
Nicolosi #1
Reviewed and Critiqued in:
Acosta 1975, Bieber 1967, Bieber & Bieber 1979, Bieber 1987, Blair 1972, Clippinger 1974, Diamant 1987, Green 1988, Haldeman 1991, Haldeman 1994, Murphy 1992, Throckmorton 1998.
-------------------------------------------------




Research Summary:
Lee Birk
The Myth of Classical Homosexuality: Views of a Behavioral Psychotherapist

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Author and Source:
Lee Birk
In Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal. Judd Marmor (Editor). New York: Basic Books, 1980. Pages 376-390.
Brief Description:
Birk discusses behavioral therapies and gives data about the results of working with twenty-nine exclusively homosexual men.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
Varied. Fourteen of the men expressed "a clear wish to experience heterosexual feelings and behaviors in a pleasurable way" (p. 386); fifteen did not.
Stated Definition of Change:
The author used the term "heterosexual shift," defined as "the new emergence of heterosexual behavior" (p. 387). He also used the term "'solid' heterosexual shift," which refers to a heterosexual shift where the patient ends up in a stable, happy marriage.
"In speaking of heterosexual shifts, it is my belief that these represent shifts in a person's salient sexual adaptation1 to life, not total metamorphosis. Most, if not all, people who have been homosexual continue to have some homosexual feelings, fantasies, and interests. More often than not, they also have occasional, or more than occasional, homosexual outlets, even while being 'happily married.'"(p. 387)
Actual Change:
Change in heterosexual behaviour.
Description of Method:
Birk worked with patients initially using "group therapy combined with a classical behavioral scheme" and later using "weekly behavioral psychotherapy meetings in groups of about nine members led jointly by a male therapist and a female therapist" (p. 386).
For this subsample, Birk included only those who were "exclusively homosexual and who had never once experienced heterosexual intercourse prior to therapy" (p. 386). As he was interested in highly motivated patients, only exclusively homosexual men who had been in therapy for at least two and one-half years were included (unless "ready to terminate" before that time).
Length of Treatment:
A minimum of two and one-half years.
Follow-up:
No data was given.
Summary of Results:
All fourteen men who wanted to "experience heterosexual feelings and behaviors" made heterosexual shifts:
Ten made "solid" heterosexual shifts and "are now in stable, apparently happy marriages" (p.387);
One man who married later became divorced;
Three men are in heterosexual relationships and are sexually active with their opposite-sex partner.
Of the fifteen men who did not indicate at the start of therapy that they wanted to become heterosexual:
Eleven men remained homosexual;
One man is "happily married, enjoying regular heterosexual intercourse, and has two children;"
One man is in an unstable marriage situation;
Two men are in heterosexual relationships and are or have been sexually active with an opposite-sex partner.
Birk summarized the results by saying that 18 of the 29 men had experienced heterosexual shifts. Eleven of these were considered "solid" shifts due to the men being in stable marriages (all data from p. 387).
Discussion of Relevant Results:
Eighteen men who had been exclusively homosexual acquired heterosexual behaviour.
For six of these men, we are explicitly told that they have heterosexual intercourse. For eleven of these men, it can be assumed that they have heterosexual intercourse. (note: one has children; the other 10 are in "stable, apparently happy marriages").
Thus, this constitutes a change in heterosexual behaviour.
Strengths:
In discussing "heterosexual shifts," Birk was clear that he was referring only to behavioral changes.
The subsample included only those who were exclusively homosexual with no prior heterosexual intercourse.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
Birk does not clearly define what must be present for a heterosexual shift to be considered "solid." From the results which he reports, it would seem that a stable marriage is required for a "solid" heterosexual shift. However, he does not explain why, for example, the two men who "now enjoy heterosexual intercourse, and are dating regularly with a serious interest in 'finding a woman to settle down with'" would not be considered "solid" shifts.
While Birk was clear that "heterosexual shift" related to a change in behaviour, he does not explain why he uses a term which implies broader changes.
We are not given any information about the attractions and fantasies of the twenty-nine men. Thus, it is possible that some of them developed heterosexual attraction and desires as well as behaviour. It is also likely, according to Birk, that most of them "continue to have some homosexual feelings, fantasies, and interest" (p. 387). However, we are not given any information to deny or confirm these possibilities or likelihoods. More detail on the changes, including Kinsey-type ratings and data about fantasies, would have been helpful in giving a clearer picture of what changes did or did not occur beyond behaviour.
Reviewed and Critiqued in:
Haldeman 1991, Haldeman 1994, Throckmorton 1998.

Research Summary:
Edward J. Callahan
Covert Sensitization for Homosexuality

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Author and Source:
Edward J. Callahan
Counseling Methods. John D. Krumboltz and Carl E. Thoresen, Eds. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976. Pages 234 - 245.
Brief Description:
Discusses covert sensitization and gives a case history of Lowell, a twenty-five-year-old male client.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
To "try to do away with his homosexual arousal and to learn heterosexual arousal" (p. 240).
Stated Definition of Change:
Not specified.
Actual Change:
Change in Heterosexual Behaviour (commenced or increased)
Change in Homosexual Attraction (decreased or eliminated)
Change in Heterosexual Attraction (commenced)
Change in Homosexual Fantasies (decreased or eliminated)
Partial Sexual Orientation Shift
Description of Method:
The first five sessions involved initial interviews, history-taking, baseline measures, relaxation training, etc. Subsequently, the client received fourteen sessions of covert sensitization. He also attended assertion training.
Covert sensitization, in brief, involves the following: The therapist verbally describes a scene or scenario, which the client is to imagine as fully as possible. The telling of the scenario includes not only what is happening but also what the client should feel, see, smell and so on. Some scenes contain the elements of homosexual fantasies or sexual experiences which the client has had, with additional components introduced by the therapist.
There are two kinds of scenarios: punishment and escape. Punishment scenarios may be about homosexual fantasy and desire, but the therapist modifies what is happening in it so that the client is to imagine getting sick to the stomach during them, or being arrested, or other similar "punishments". Escape scenes may be about similar fantasies, but the client "escapes" the "punishment" by walking away from the sexual encounter and, for example, feeling like he can breath again. For the reader who is interested in learning more about covert sensitization, Callahan's article is more thorough in its explanation.
Length of Treatment:
Fourteen sessions in 10 days.
Follow-up:
Four and a half years.
Summary of Results:
See Discussion of Relevant Results.
Discussion of Relevant Results:
Before treatment, Lowell was predominantly homosexual (K5). His involvement in sexual activities began at age 6 when an uncle taught him how to **********. Later, the uncle had Lowell ********** him as well. Sexual activity with boys occured in the second grade, and again in junior high school when he and another boy were sexually involved for about a year. Subsequently, Lowell **********d on his own but had no further sexual contact with other men. In high school he did date three girls. "He had had little desire to kiss the first two girls and cannot remember ever having erections while with them" (p. 238). His involvement with the third girl included some "minor petting" and he had erections on occasion. Between high school and starting treatment, he had two short-term dating relationships. He considered marriage with one of these girls, but "felt he was sexually incapable of making love to her" (p. 239) and ended the relationship. He was sexually attracted to men during this time period as well.
During the treatment, his "reported homosexual urges dropped from fourteen to six a day," and he "reported spontaneous sexual arousal to the sight of women for the first time" (p. 242). At the first follow-up, his arousal to males was continuing to decrease. At the five-month follow-up, he "reported regular sexual arousal and foreplay with his girlfriend" (p. 243) but, for religious reasons, no intercourse. Male fantasies had not recurred. At the 2 1/2 year follow-up, things were the same other than "one homosexual urge every three days for the two weeks" before the follow-up session (p. 243). He was married and said he had no difficulties with intercourse. At the 4 1/2 year follow-up, Lowell said that there was "no problem with homosexual arousal and that he has a good sexual relationship with his wife" (p. 244). He can therefore be considered K1, or predominantly heterosexual.
To summarize the changes that took place:
Homosexual behaviour remained the same (viz., non-existent, as from senior high school to the start of treatment, and from the start of treatment to the 4 1/2 year follow-up point, he had not been sexually involved with men).
Heterosexual behaviour commenced or, at the least, increased dramatically (depending on how one understands the occasional erections Lowell had when dating one girl in high school).
Homosexual fantasy was eliminated (based on 5-month follow-up report) or at least reduced.
Heterosexual fantasy: nothing is said about this.
Homosexual attraction decreased (based on the initial follow-up report and on the 4 1/2 year follow-up report; it is possible that it was eliminated entirely, but saying "there is now no problem with homosexual arousal" (p. 244) is not entirely clear).
Heterosexual attraction: commenced and became stronger.
It is possible that Lowell experienced a full shift in sexual orientation. However, it is not entirely clear as to whether some homosexual fantasy or homosexual attraction may still be present. Thus, to err on the conservative side, we will say that he experienced a partial shift in sexual orientation (K5 to K1).
Strengths:
Good follow-up length.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
There should have been clearer statements about post-treatment homosexual fantasy and attraction, particularly related to the follow-up sessions.
Follow-up did not include interviews with Lowell's wife or friends.
Reviewed and Critiqued in:
Throckmorton 1998.
-------------------------------------------------

Research Summary:
Alejandro Cantón-Dutari
Combined Intervention for Controlling Unwanted Homosexual Behavior

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Author and Source:
Alejandro Cantón-Dutari
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3(4), 367-371, 1974.
Combined Intervention for Controlling Unwanted Sexual Behavior: An Extended Follow-up. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 5(4), 323-325, 1976.
Brief Description:
Cantón-Dutari used behavioural techniques with 54 homosexual males to control sexual arousal to homosexual images.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
"Control of sexual arousal in the presence of a homosexual stimulus", and secondarily, "spontaneous erection to female stimuli" (p. 369).
Stated Definition of Change:
Not specified.
Actual Change:
Change in Homosexual Behaviour (decreased)
Change in Heterosexual Behaviour (commenced).
Description of Method:
Cantón-Dutari used desensitization, aversion, and a "contraction-breathing technique" to help active homosexual males to control their sexual arousal to homosexual images.
Length of Treatment:
An average of 16 weeks.
Follow-up:
Initially, an average of 3 1/2 years since the end of treatment. The extended follow-up article published two years later reported an average of 4 years (range 4-8 years).
Summary of Results:
Of the 54 patients, 49 were considered successfully treated as they had attained the primary goal of "control of sexual arousal in the presence of a homosexual stimulus" (p. 369). One of these 49 returned to homosexual behaviour 11 weeks after therapy ended.
Forty-four of 49 were "able to perform adequately during heterosexual intercourse" (p. 370).
Twenty-two were followed for an average of 3 1/2 years. Eleven of these remained exclusively heterosexual; the other eleven ********** to homosexual imagery but have not been involved in homosexual behaviour.
Four of the patients are now married.
Discussion of Relevant Results:
54 male patients "sought and achieved orgasm in the presence of a another male in preference to a female partner" (p. 367). They were all said to have begun "homosexual play" before puberty (mean age: 7 years) and to have considered themselves homosexual also before puberty. When treatment started they were, on average, having an orgasm with another male four times a week (p. 368).
13 of these patients had had heterosexual intercourse before starting therapy. For two of these 13, heterosexual intercourse was also taking place once a week. No details are given as to the nature or context of this. While some of these 13 may be predominantly homosexual despite having had heterosexual intercourse, we are not given enough information and they will therefore not be considered further.
41 patients (54 - 13 = 41) remain who can be classified as predominantly homosexual (K5). They may actually be exclusively homosexual.
We are not told how many of these 13 patients were part of the group which was successfully treated, nor how many of them were included in the 22 patients for whom follow-up was done. In the absence of such a breakdown, we will take the conservative route and assume that all 13 were included in both groups.
Thus, we can say that 31 patients who were predominantly homosexual and had not had prior heterosexual intercourse were "able to perform adequately during heterosexual intercourse" (44 successfully treated - 13 = 31).
We also need to take into account the 13 patients when looking at the 22 patients who were followed up for an average of 3 1/2 years. The best we can say is that 9 patients who (a) were predominantly homosexual and (b) who had not had prior heterosexual intercourse, were now "able to perform adequately during heterosexual intercourse and had not been involved in homosexual behaviour again for an average period of 3 1/2 years. This is a change in homosexual behaviour and a change in heterosexual behaviour.

[Erring on the conservative side, 11 of the 13 patients who had prior heterosexual intercourse eliminates the 11 follow-up patients who remained exclusively heterosexual. The remaining two of the 13 is then deducted from the 11 who ********** to homosexual imagery but who have not been involved in homosexual behaviour. Erring on the liberal side, it is possible that of 22 patients who had been predominantly homosexual with no prior heterosexual intercourse and who now perform adequately during heterosexual intercourse, 11 had remained exclusively heterosexual for an average period of 3 1/2 years, and another 11 ********** to homosexual imagery but have not been involved in homosexual behaviour....]
[Results from Combined Intervention...: An Extended Follow-up]

Two years after the publication of the original article, an extended follow-up article was published. Of the 49 patients who successfully completed therapy, 31 were contacted an average of 4 years (range: 4-8 years) since the end of treatment.
Nineteen of these were exclusively heterosexual in behaviour. If we again subtract the 13 patients who had prior heterosexual intercourse, there remain 6 patients who (a) were predominantly homosexual and (b) had not had prior heterosexual intercourse, who were now "able to perform adequately during heterosexual intercourse" and had not been involved in homosexual behaviour again for an average period of 4 years. This is a change in homosexual behaviour and a change in heterosexual behaviour.
As well, 9 of these 31 had both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse after therapy. This is a change in heterosexual behaviour only.
Strengths:
Reasonably good follow-up period.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
No information is given about the context and nature of the prior heterosexual intercourse which 13 patients had been involved in. Such information would have been helpful in determining whether they were bisexual (or another non-K5, non-K6 rating) or if they should have been considered K5 or K6 despite the prior heterosexual intercourse.
No breakdown is given as to which of the 13 patients who had prior heterosexual intercourse were included in the 49 successfully treated, the 44 who performed adequately during heterosexual intercourse, or the 22 who were followed for 3 1/2 years. Such a breakdown would have given a clearer picture of how many actually experienced change in homosexual and heterosexual behaviour.
Kinsey or Kinsey-type ratings for before and after therapy would have been helpful, ideally broken down into behaviour, attraction, fantasy and identity. As Cantón-Dutari's focus was on controlling behaviour, it is understandable that he would not have included these; they would however have given greater insight into the depth (or lack thereof) of the changes taking place.
Overall, the data could have been grouped and presented more effectively.
Several issues are not clear in the follow-up article: (1) why was a follow-up article published two years later which only added 1/2 year to the average length of time since therapy ended? Why does the article state an average period of 4 years since the end of treatment, and at the same time a follow-up range of 4-8 years when, logically, only one of these can be correct?
The data in the follow-up article was not effectively linked to data from the original article.

Yes it does. Monozygotic twins are genetically identical unless there has been a mutation after the zygote has divided.

So you are an identical twin?

In June, 2002, Catholic psychiatrists with the Catholic Medical Association in Pewaukee, Wisconsin, sent a letter of concern to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and offered to help the Catholic Church deal with its scandals over priests with same-sex attractions. Many of these priests are not pedophiles in the clinical sense or the legal sense of the word. These are pederasts or homosexuals who are attracted to teenage boys or young adults.


Oh that justifies it.

Funny all the cases I have read and heard about involved children.

Hmmm Catholic Medical Association? Nahhh they wouldn't have an agenda. :rolleyes:

A Homosexual Treated with Rational Psychotherapy






Research Summary:
Albert Ellis
A Homosexual Treated with Rational Psychotherapy

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Author and Source:
Albert Ellis
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15, 338-343. (1959)
Brief Description:
Describes his work with Caleb, a 35-year-old homosexual man, using rational psychotherapy.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
"to help him overcome his irrational blocks against heterosexuality" (p. 339).
Stated Definition of Change:
Implied: Actively desiring and enjoying sexual relations with females (p. 339).
Actual Change:
Change in Homosexual Behaviour (eliminated)
Change in Heterosexual Behaviour (commenced)
Change in Homosexual Attraction (decreased)
Change in Heterosexual Attraction (started)
Change in Homosexual Fantasies (eliminated)
Change in Heterosexual Fantasies (commenced)
Partial Sexual Orientation Shift
Description of Method:
Rational Psychotherapy.
Length of Treatment:
Once a week for 19 weeks.
Follow-up:
Not specified. In the almost three years between the end of treatment and the writing of the article, Ellis had received two long letters from Caleb. In them Caleb said that he was now married, and "completely disinterested in homosexual relations" (p. 343).
Summary of Results:
See Discussion of Relevant Results.
Discussion of Relevant Results:
Before the start of treatment, Caleb had no sexual involvement with women. From age 19 to age 35, he was sexually active with other men every 2-3 weeks. Though he occasionally dated women, this was attributed to being for the purpose of appearing heterosexual, as "he was not particularly attracted to any of them" (p. 339). That his fantasies were exclusively homosexual is implied by the statement on page 342 that says, "All his waking and sleeping fantasies became heterosexual" (italics added). Ellis himself referred to Caleb as a "hundred per cent fixed homosexual" (p. 342) prior to treatment. Thus, Caleb was exclusively homosexual, or K6, prior to treatment.
After the first therapy session, Caleb began to date women. Soon after, he had intercourse with one young woman, "which he thoroughly enjoyed" (p. 341). After the seventh therapy session, he began a relationship with another woman. They also had intercourse and Caleb found it to be "supremely enjoyable" (p. 342). "Although Caleb's homosexual proclivities were barelyl mentioned after the first two sessions, and no direct attempt was made to get him to forego them, he completely and voluntarily renounced homosexuality as soon as he began to be sexually and emotionally successful with females. By the twelfth week of therapy had arrived, he had changed from a hundred per cent fixed homosexual to virtually a hundred per cent heterosexual. All his waking and sleeping fantasies became heterosexually oriented, and he was almost never interested in homosexual outlets" (p. 342).
Caleb discontinued therapy after the 19th session. At that point, his fantasies were heterosexual in nature. He was very attracted to women, and sexually active with them. He was not sexually active with men.
He wrote two letters to Ellis in the almost three years since discontinuing treatment, saying that he is now married and "completely disinterested in homosexual relations" (p. 343; Ellis is not quoting Caleb here but mentioning what the letter communicated). This phrase has a behavioural edge to it; that is to say, it is not specifically about attraction but about desire to be sexually involved with men (a man can be sexually attracted to men without desiring to be sexually intimate with them). At the same time, Ellis does report that Caleb's fantasies had become heterosexual.... Because some uncertainty remains, and because Ellis uses the phrase "virtually hundred per cent heterosexually oriented " instead of saying exclusively heterosexually oriented, Caleb is rated as predominantly heterosexual (K1) after treatment.
In light of Caleb's shift from K6 to K1, he experienced a partial shift in sexual orientation.
Strengths:
Clear goal for therapy.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
Follow-up was neither thorough nor intentional.
Clearer statements about his attractions would have been helpful.
Reviewed and Critiqued in:
Clippinger 1974, Throckmorton 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------
Research Summary:
J.A. Hadfield
The Cure of Homosexuality

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Author and Source:
J.A. Hadfield
British Medical Journal, June 7, 1958, 1323-1326.
Brief Description:
Reports on nine individual cases which he treated with psychoanalysis.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
Not specified.
Stated Definition of Change:
The patient "loses his propensity to his own sex and has his sexual interests directed towards those of the opposite sex" (p. 1323). The author was clear that by "cure" he did not mean the ability to merely control one's desires. He was also clear that marriage, the ability to have sexual relations with the opposite sex, and bearing children can not be considered a sign of cure. Such a definition is equivalent to a full shift in sexual orientation.
Actual Change:
Change in Homosexual Behaviour
Change in Heterosexual Behaviour
Change in Homosexual Attraction
Change in Heterosexual Attraction
Full Sexual Orientation Shift
Description of Method:
Hadfield reports on his psychoanalytic work with nine individuals.
Length of Treatment:
Average length was not specified, other than to say it was time-consuming. For subject 6, it required 164 treatments. Some cases required more than 164 treatments.
Follow-up:
One man is still in treatment. Hadfield had contact with one man three years after treatment, and with three men 30 years after treatment. Information is not given on the follow-up of the other four men.
Summary of Results:
(The subjects have been numbered based on the order of their appearance in the original article.)

The four subjects who were exclusively homosexual before treatment (subjects 1, 2, 6 and 7) became heterosexual in orientation.
Subjects 1 and 2 were followed up after thirty years. They were still heterosexual in orientation. Hadfield stated that they "remained cured, with no further episodes" and had "no relapses" (p. 1324).
Subjects 6 and 7 completed treatment more recently and follow-up data was not available.
The two subjects who were predominantly homosexual before treatment (subjects 3 and 4) became heterosexual in orientation.
Subject 3: Hadfield had news of him before his death, but did not specify how many years after treatment this occurred. At that time, the subject had left his wife for another woman.
Subject 4 was followed up after thirty years. He was still heterosexual in orientation.
In light of information provided on subjects 3 and 4, they may in fact have originally been exclusively homosexual rather than predominantly homosexual, despite their marriage and children. However, as Hadfield considered them "not entirely homosexual" (p. 1324), we take the more conservative position.
Subjects 5 and 8 were difficult to classify.
Subject 5 was described as a practising homosexual. However, no comments were made as to his feelings about or toward women before treatment. As well, because he only had five treatments and the only contact after treatment was a letter, we shall not consider him further.
Not enough information was provided on Subject 8 to assign a Kinsey-type rating. At the end of treatment, his homosexual desires were gone replaced by heterosexual desires. No follow-up information was given.
Subject 9 was still in treatment, and will not be considered further.
Discussion of Relevant Results:
Hadfield used a clear definition of "cure" (see Stated Definition of Change, above). As treatment was usually quite lengthy, he would have had ample opportunity to evaluate progress in each of the subjects. The one exception to this was subject 5, who was seen only five times.
This study provides clear evidence for the possibility of changing one's sexual orientation:
Four subjects (1, 2, 6, and 7) who were exclusively homosexual became heterosexual in orientation by the end of treatment.
Two subjects (3, 4) who had been predominantly homosexual became heterosexual in orientation.
For three of these six subjects, a thirty-year follow-up was done and they continued to be heterosexual.
Strengths:
Hadfield used a clear definition of "cure," related to sexual desires and attraction rather than focusing only on behaviour.
The thirty-year follow-up for three subjects goes far beyond the follow-up period of other studies.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
The men reported their progress themselves. There was no external validation or confirmation of what they said.
Cross References:
HAFS# 2-2
Reviewed and Critiqued in:
Clippinger 1974.

So you are an identical twin?

No. What has that got to do with anything?

Changing Homosexuality in the Male:
Treatment for Men Troubled by Homosexuality






Research Summary:
Lawrence J. Hatterer
Changing Homosexuality in the Male: Treatment for Men Troubled by Homosexuality

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Author and Source:
Lawrence J. Hatterer
Changing Homosexuality in the Male. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970.
Brief Description:
Hatterer describes the results of doing psychotherapy with 143 homosexual men.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
Not specified.
Stated Definition of Change:
"Able to enjoy mature, consistent, satisfactory heterosexual adjustment without significant conflicts" (p. 469).

"Adjustment" is roughly equivalent to the way we use "orientation" today. Someone with a "homosexual adjustment" would be sexually and emotionally attracted to the same sex. If he or she is sexually active, it would also be with the same sex. Similarly, someone with a "heterosexual adjustment" is sexually and emotionally attracted to the opposite sex, and would be sexually involved with the opposite sex. Hatterer further qualifies "heterosexual adjustment" for this definition as being "mature, consistent, satisfactory" and "without significant conflicts." To be without significant conflicts means that a person is content with what he is feeling or doing. He is not at odds with his sexuality.

Actual Change:
Change in Homosexual Behaviour
Change in Heterosexual Behaviour
Change in Homosexual Attraction
Change in Heterosexual Attraction
Partial Sexual Orientation Shift
Full Sexual Orientation Shift.
Description of Method:
Hatterer is a psychiatrist who has "evaluated 710 males troubled and untroubled by a vast spectrum of homosexual fantasy, impulse, act, and milieu," and "successfully and unsuccessfully treated well over 200 of them, experimenting with a variety of supportive, directive, and psychoanalytic therapeutic confrontations, attitudes, and techniques" (p. vii). The vast majority of these men had been diagnosed as having "personality pattern disturbance, homosexuality."
Length of Treatment:
Length of treatment ranged from 3 to 325 hours, with an average of 42 hours. Average hours of treatment for recovered patients, 74; for partially recovered patients, 116; for patients who remained homosexual, 32.1.
Follow-up:
37 of the 49 recovered patients were followed up, between 1 and 15 years later, with the average length of time being 5.8 years.
Twelve of the recovered patients were not followed-up due to being in therapy too recently, not having been contacted yet, or difficulty in making contact.
Summary of Results:
Of the 143 patients, 49 recovered, 18 partially recovered, and 76 remained homosexual.
When therapy ended, the 18 patients who were considered "partially recovered" were classified ranging from "exclusively homosexual with occasional heterosexual activity" to a heterosexual adjustment with occasional homosexuality.
When therapy ended, the 49 patients who "recovered" were classified as follows:
47 were "able to enjoy mature, consistent, satisfactory heterosexual adjustment without significant conflicts."
2 were "able to enjoy mature, consistent, satisfactory heterosexual adjustment without significant conflicts" and had occasional homosexual fantasies.
Of the forty-nine recovered patients:
6 were rated as Kinsey 6 at the start of therapy
8 were rated as Kinsey 5
5 were rated as Kinsey 4
13 were rated as Kinsey 3
18 were rated as Kinsey 2
1 was rated as Kinsey 1
For one, a rating was not available.
Discussion of Relevant Results:
Of the 14 subjects who were predominantly homosexual (Kinsey 5), 8 were classified as "recovered."
One of these still has occasional homosexual fantasies. He therefore can be said to have experienced a partial shift in sexual orientation.
The remaining seven subjects recovered and are not listed as having homosexual fantasies. They had a full shift in sexual orientation.
Of the 88 subjects who were exclusively homosexual (Kinsey 6) at the start of therapy, four were classified as "recovered." They experienced a full shift in sexual orientation.
Thus, 11 men who were exclusively or predominantly homosexual experienced a full shift in sexual orientation and are now heterosexual. As well, one man who was predominantly homosexual experienced a partial shift in sexual orientation.
These 12 men were all followed up.
Strengths:
Large number of patients.
Average time between end of therapy and follow-up was 5.8 years.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
The author rated each patient on the Kinsey scale at the start of therapy. However, no data was given in regard to where patients were on the Kinsey scale at the end of therapy or at follow-up. Comparison would have been easier if he had done so.
Cross References:
Nicolosi# 3
Reviewed and Critiqued in:
Blair 1972, Clippinger 1974, Fine 1987, Harry 1984, Sagarin 1971, Serban 1972, Throckmorton 1998.

-----------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality in Women






Research Summary:
Harvey E. Kaye et al.
Homosexuality in Women

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Authors and Source:
Harvey E. Kaye, Soll Berl, Jack Clare, Mary R. Eleston, Benjamin S. Gershwin, Patricia Gershwin, Leonard S. Kogan, Clara Torda, and Cornelia B. Wilbur.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 17, 626-634 (November 1967).
Brief Description:
The researchers compared 24 female homosexual patients with 24 female non-homosexual patients.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
Not specified. Patients entered analysis for various reasons.
Stated Definition of Change:
The authors used a 5-point scale for the results of treatment. They seemed to be focusing on overall "movement" rather than specific changes in behaviour, fantasy, and attraction.
Actual Change:
Not clear from the information provided.
Description of Method:
From an initial group of over 150 psychoanalysts, the researchers sent questionnaires to those analysts who were working with female homosexual patients. They then did comparisons between the female homosexual patients and the female non-homosexual patients. They also noted the results of treatment to see if psychoanalysis was effective in helping female homosexuals.
Length of Treatment:
Not specified.
Follow-up:
Not specified.
Summary of Results:
The authors asked analysts to use a five-point scale (similar to Kinsey's) to rate patients at the beginning of treatment and at the end of treatment. This information was available for 19 of the 24 patients:

# of patients in this category at:
Rating Start End
Exclusively homosexual 9 4
Predominantly homosexual 6 4
Equally heterosexual and homosexual 1 2
Predominantly heterosexual 2 1
Exclusively heterosexual 1 8


On average, this is a move from an average rating of 4 ("Predominantly homosexual") to an average of 2.7 (between "Equally hetero-homo" and "Predominantly heterosexual").
Discussion of Relevant Results:
Initially, the results in the table above seem good. If we focus on the fifteen patients who were "exclusively homosexual" or "predominantly homosexual" at the start of therapy, only 8 remained in that category at the end of treatment.
Unfortunately, the use of poorly defined terms makes it impossible to take these results at face value (see Limitations and Shortcomings, below). Despite the lack of evidence for change, this study is summarized here so that those who may otherwise be misled by a "good first impression" can see what this study is all about.
Strengths:
None.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
The authors' use of certain terms was poorly defined or in need of explanation:
They defined "homosexual" as "any adult female who was having repetitive overt homosexual activity" (p. 626). This definition focuses on behaviour and does not take into account attraction and fantasy. It also does not specify whether this adult female was also having heterosexual activity, fantasies or attraction at the same time.
All patients who were not in the exclusively homosexual category at the onset of therapy were referred to as "bisexual" (p. 630). This by default must include patients who were listed as "predominantly heterosexual" or "exclusively heterosexual" at the start of treatment. The authors provided no justification for this.
They did not explain why one female homosexual patient was rated as exclusively heterosexual at the start of treatment (see table in Summary of Results, above) or, to put it the other way around, why a person who was rated exclusively heterosexual was used as a female homosexual subject.
Thus, one has a female homosexual patient who is referred to as bisexual and rated as exclusively heterosexual before treatment!
Cross References:
HAFS# 4-4
Reviewed and Critiqued in:
Clippinger 1974, Diamant 1987

-----------------------------------------------------

No. What has that got to do with anything?
I am.

I am.

Good for you. I don't see how this changes anything.

treating homosexuality? You don't treat homosexuality. You brainwash them into thinking they're something they're not.

SP!

Don't cut and past.

Just give links.....

*snipped*
-----------------------------------------------------
What journal are you pulling these from?

treating homosexuality? You don't treat homosexuality. You brainwash them into thinking they're something they're not.

I certainly wouldn't consent to it. I'm quite happy as who I am, thankyou very much.

Research Summary:
Jay L. Liss & Amos Welner
Change in Homosexual Orientation

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Author and Source:
Jay L. Liss & Amos Welner
American Journal of Psychotherapy, 27(1), 102-104, (1973).
Brief Description:
Describes the case of a male client who came seeking help to change his sexual orientation. Aversive therapy was unsuccessful. He was then seen by another doctor to provide some general support, during which time sex was seldom mentioned. Subsequently, his sexual attraction and behaviour began changing.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
Initially, change of sexual orientation by aversion therapy. Subsequently, general support.
Stated Definition of Change:
Not specified.
Actual Change:
Change in Homosexual Behaviour (eliminated)
Change in Heterosexual Behaviour (commenced/increased)
Change in Heterosexual Attraction (commenced)
Description of Method:
Liss & Welner write that, as their goal in therapy did not relate to the change in orientation, they are reporting what they observed.
Length of Treatment:
18 months.
Follow-up:
No data was given.
Summary of Results:
See Discussion of Relevant Results.
Discussion of Relevant Results:
"L.T." had been sexually active with boys from the age of 10. This progressed from mutual ************ to oral and anal intercourse. From his mid-teens to age 24, when he started therapy, he was involved with multiple male partners several times a week. His attraction and fantasy was directed toward men.
He did date girls, due to community pressure. At age 16, he had intercourse with a girl "at her invitation and not as a date" (p. 103). The therapists were not able to get any details about this incident. There were two other occasions where he could have had intercourse with girls, but "was impotent because he was not aroused" (p. 103). This is the extent of his heterosexual activity.
In light of items 1 and 2, L.T. would be rated predominantly homosexual (K5) or exclusively homosexual (K6). If one considers the three incidents at age 16 to be the result of community and family pressure rather than desire on his part, he would be considered to be exclusively homosexual.
As the sessions of general support progressed, the following changes were noted: "L.T. began spontaneously to notice evidence of sexual interest in women, that is, he began to have erections if he was personally close to a woman" and "a definite erotic feeling" toward some women (p. 103). Subsequently, he reported heavy petting and then intercourse with a woman, followed by being sexually active with a number of women for an eight month period. He is now engaged.
The authors do not report whether L.T. still has homosexual fantasies or now has heterosexual fantasies, nor whether his attraction to men remains.
Thus, all we can say for certainty is that there was a complete reversal in his sexual behaviour, and that he became attracted to women.
Strengths:
A detailed sexual history is provided.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
No information is given about current fantasies and current attraction to men.
No follow-up data is given.
-------------------------------------------------
Research Summary:
William H. Masters & Virginia E. Johnson
Homosexuality in Perspective

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Authors and Source:
William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson
Homosexuality in Perspective. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979.
Brief Description:
Between 1968 and 1977, the Masters and Johnson Institute worked with 67 clients and their opposite-sex partners who came to them for the treatment of "homosexual dissatisfaction."
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
Conversion or reversion to heterosexuality: enabling clients to function heterosexually, so that they can then choose how they want to live. No specific attempt was made to reduce or eliminate homosexual behaviour, desires or fantasies.
Stated Definition of Change:
Not applicable. See Goal of Therapy, above
Actual Change:
Change in Homosexual Behaviour
Change in Heterosexual Behaviour
Change in Homosexual Attraction (for one client)
Change in Heterosexual Attraction
Partial Sexual Orientation Shift (for two clients)
Description of Method:
"Rapid-treatment" techniques were used over a two week period to treat difficulties or dysfunctions in functioning heterosexually. Some of these were impotence, premature ejaculation, anorgasm1 and sexual aversion.2 These techniques included a combination of behaviour therapy, psychodynamic therapy, social learning and education (Diamant, 1987).
Of the 67 clients, 54 were male and 13 were female. 40 were married, with some of these being separated from their spouses or not sexually active with their spouses.
Fifty-five of these clients had prior heterosexual experience (Kinsey 2-4) and wanted to revert to heterosexuality. Twelve clients had little or no prior heterosexual experience (Kinsey 5 or 6) and were "classified as requesting conversion to heterosexuality" (p. 333)

Length of Treatment:
2 weeks, with daily therapy sessions.
Follow-up:
At the time of publication, follow-up ranged from 1 to 5 years. While the goal was a five-year follow-up, some clients had only been treated within the past five years (pp. 400-401).
Summary of Results:
Masters and Johnson chose to summarize their results in terms of failure rates. They found an overall failure rate of 28.4% (p. 400). This rate takes into account those who did not successfully complete treatment ("initial treatment failures") and those who completed treatment but returned to their previous sexual situation ("treatment reversals"). It does not take into account those men and women who were lost to follow-up.

Male Female Total
Original number of clients: 54 13 67
Initial treatment failures: 11 3 14
Treatment reversals: 4 1 5
Total failures: (initial treatment failures + treatment reversals) 15 4 19
** Overall failure rate: 28.4 % **
("total failures" divided by "original number of clients")

Masters and Johnson assumed that only 15% of those "lost to follow-up" would be treatment reversals. Thus, they gave a revised overall failure rate of approximately 33% for the male clients and 40% for female clients (p. 400-401). This works out to an average of about 34% for male and female clients combined.

Male Female Total
Actual number of clients lost to follow-up: 16 3 19
Estimated number of those "lost to follow-up" who returned to homosexuality: 3 1 4
** Estimated final failure rate: 34.3 % **
(based on "total failures" plus "estimated number of those 'lost to follow-up' who returned to homosexuality" divided by "original number of clients")

Looking at it another way:

Male Female Total
Clients who successfully completed treatment without returning to homosexuality or being "lost to follow-up": 23 6 29
** Minimum final success rate: 43.2 % **
("clients who successfully completed treatment..." divided by "original number of clients")

(all figures adapted from table 17-2 and "lost to follow-up" data in text, both on p. 400. These figures include both conversion and reversion clients)

Discussion of Relevant Results:
For our purposes, we will focus on the clients who were rated as Kinsey 6 or Kinsey 5. These are the "conversion" clients who had little or no prior heterosexual experience.
Because we do not know how many of these clients were lost to follow-up (see Limitations and Shortcomings, below) nor how many of those who were lost to follow-up later returned to homosexuality, we will first discuss their status at the end of treatment.
Two of the nine male clients who were Kinsey 5 or 6 were initial treatment failures. This leaves seven male clients who successfully completed treatment. The three female clients who were Kinsey 5 or 6 all successfully completed treatment. This gives a total of ten "conversion" clients who successfully completed treatment.
Thus, after two weeks of treatment, ten homosexual people who had little or no prior heterosexual experience, were able to interact sexually with their opposite-sex partner in satisfying ways.
This is not proof of a shift in sexual orientation. It makes no statement about change or lack of change in terms of a person's desire for and fantasies about the same-sex.
It is however a significant result that ten persons who previously were exclusively or predominantly homosexual, were able to interact sexually in satisfying ways with an opposite-sex partner.
Follow-up was completed for "R," who had been exclusively homosexual. He and his wife have had children and describe their marriage as "effective." This does not show a shift in sexual orientation, nor does it make a statement about "R"'s homosexuality. It does show that it is possible for a change in heterosexual behaviour to endure, and presumably for a degree of heterosexual attraction to develop.
Follow-up was also completed for "T.," who had been exclusively homosexual. She got married, had a child, and described no interest in homosexual activity. As homosexual behaviour and attraction have been eliminated, and heterosexual behaviour and attraction have taken their place, this qualifies as a partial shift in sexual orientation. We do not know anything about her sexual fantasies, and are thus unable to state that this is a full shift.
A later article (Schwartz & Masters, 1984) about this treatment program mentions an exclusively homosexual man who converted to heterosexuality. Follow-up was done for three and a half years. He had left the gay community. He was only involved in heterosexual behaviour. His ************ fantasies also became directed toward women instead of men. He had a full shift in sexual orientation. His example, along with the two clients described above, shows that not all "conversion" clients are lost to follow-up.
Strengths:
A follow-up goal of five years.
From the cases presented (pp. 343ff, 367ff) and other descriptions, the multi-faceted treatment:
gave facts about the anatomy, sexual physiology, and psychosexual needs of the opposite sex.
provided a safe, non-judgmental environment in which to ask questions about sexuality.
dealt with communication issues in the relationship.
treated problems such as impotence or vaginismus3
dealt with fears, anxieties and insecurities
addressed issues from the past, such as negative experiences with the opposite sex.
gave the clients immediate access to help in any problems which arose during treatment.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
Statistics were provided only in regard to the number of treatment failures for each category (male, female, conversion, reversion). Therefore specific comparisons can not be made for each client.
After taking into account initial treatment failures and treatment reversals, 6 male and 3 female conversion clients were left. At the same time, Masters and Johnson report that, overall, 16 male and 3 female clients were lost to follow-up. They do not indicate how many of these were in the "conversion" category and how many in the "reversion" category. Thus, it is possible that all 6 male and all 3 female conversion clients were lost to follow-up and returned to homosexuality. We are not given enough information to know. The exceptions to these are given in the following case studies (also mentioned above in Discussion of Relevant Results):
"R" was exclusively homosexual (Kinsey 6) and converted to heterosexuality. Follow-up was completed for him (pp. 350-353).
"T" was exclusively homosexual (Kinsey 6) and converted to heterosexuality. According to follow-up information, she has no interest in homosexual activity (pp. 371-372).
Masters and Johnson used the term orientation in ways which did not correspond to the work they were doing. For example, they mentioned that four "men returned to prior homosexual orientation" (p. 400) some time after treatment. This implies that these men had left the homosexual orientation due to treatment. The treatment, however, did not attempt to eliminate homosexual behaviour or desires, nor did it change sexual orientation. Its goal was to help clients function heterosexually. Thus, it would be more accurate to say that four men who in treatment became able to function heterosexually, returned to the homosexual behaviour and interaction in which they had been involved prior to treatment.
Five-year follow-up was not completed for all clients.
Cross References:
Nicolosi# 10 HAFS# 1-3
Reviewed and Critiqued in:
Diamant 1987, Fine 1987, Gonsiorek 1981, Haldeman 1991, Haldeman 1994, Harry 1984.

Research Summary:
Joseph Wolpe
"Spontaneous" Reversal of Homosexuality After Overcoming General Interpersonal Anxiety

See Introductory Pages for full
explanation of format.

Author and Source:
Joseph Wolpe, M.D.
The Practice of Behavior Therapy. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, 1969. Pages 255-262. This case is described in less detail in Stevenson and Wolpe (1960); the 1969 book was chosen as it was cited by Nicolosi.
Brief Description:
This is a case study of a man who "spontaneously" found himself becoming heterosexual. A longer description appears below in the "Description" section.
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
To overcome fear and submissiveness in social situations.
Stated Definition of Change:
Not applicable. Wolpe at the time believed change was not possible.
Actual Change:
Change in Homosexual Behaviour
Change in Heterosexual Behaviour
Change in Homosexual Attraction
Change in Heterosexual Attraction
Full Sexual Orientation Shift
Description:
The client went into treatment for "rising anxiety" related to his continuing homosexual behaviour. The therapist felt that his religious convictions and beliefs were responsible for much of this anxiety and stress. Thus, he determined to give the client a different religious perspective, and gave him a book to read. By the sixth session, the client had come to "see that he had taken sin, particularly in relation to sexuality, too seriously" (p. 257).

When the client asked Wolpe if he could assist him to "overcome his homosexuality," Wolpe replied that he could not. Instead, they addressed the client's fears and submissiveness in social situations. To do this, Wolpe spent five sessions helping the client use assertive behaviour, and made progress.

About one year later, the client reported that, even though he had been "doing just what he pleased," he was no longer responding sexually to men. He had also met a woman and found her sexually arousing. This relationship did not last, as she rejected him.

Six months after this rejection, in January 1956, the client wrote to say that he had met a woman and was strongly attracted to her. "At the time of writing he had made love to this woman almost every night for a month, always with complete success, and with greater enjoyment than he had ever experienced with men" (p. 261).

Wolpe had follow-up interviews with the client later that year and the following year. In January 1959, the client wrote to say that he was married and finding his sex life "was still in every way satisfactory" (p. 261).

Length of Treatment:
Not applicable, as the treatment did not focus on changing the client's homosexuality but on other issues. In fact, the therapist did not believe that homosexuality could be changed, and told the client as much.
Follow-up:
At least1 eighteen months from the first report of significant changes to the last interview. There were three and one half years between the first report and a letter reported that he had married and that his sex life was "still in every way satisfactory."
Summary of Results:
Before going into treatment, the client had no sexual attraction to women, nor was he sexually involved with them. Instead, he was attracted socially and sexually to men. He "found pleasure in the company of men and had formed a succession of attachments to men with whom he had sexual relations" (p. 256). On this basis, he would be rated as exclusively homosexual (Kinsey 6).
Because of his religious upbringing and beliefs, he felt that homosexuality was sinful and was anxious about his sexual involvements. Wolpe influenced him to change these beliefs, which he did. As a result, he did "just what he pleased" (p. 259) in regard to sexual involvements with men.
Later, he noticed that he had stopped responding sexually to men. He became attracted to and sexually aroused by one particular woman. He was sexually involved with another woman over a longer period of time and found this more satisfying than his previous involvements with men. On this basis, he would be rated as exclusively heterosexual (Kinsey 0).
Discussion of Relevant Results:
In brief, this is the case of an exclusively homosexual man who became exclusively heterosexual. It is not clear how this happened.
This case is unique for two reasons:
Wolpe said that he could not help the client change his homosexuality. Instead, he influenced the client to change his religious beliefs, in order that he might accept his homosexuality and be comfortable with it. This goal was achieved. Wolpe worked with this client in the 1950's, yet his actions are in line with the common, contemporary beliefs that:
homosexuality cannot be changed;
religious beliefs are often the real problem; and
the therapist's role is to help the client to accept his or her homosexuality.
The client found his sexual feelings and behaviours changing, even though he accepted his homosexuality and no longer wanted to change.
Strengths:
There would be no reason for the client to lie about what was happening in his life, especially as:
Wolpe did not believe change was possible. Thus, giving a false report to "please the therapist" does not apply.
The client had changed his religious beliefs, and accepted his homosexuality. There was no need for him to pretend he had changed.
Limitations and Shortcomings:
A follow-up period of at least five years would be preferable.
Wolpe did not interview friends or acquaintances of the client to confirm the reported changes. He also did not speak to the women with whom the client was involved. However, in light of the situation, this is not a significant shortcoming.
Cross References:
Nicolosi #16
Reviewed and Critiqued in:
Fine 1987 (Fine reviews this case as it appeared its shorter version in Stevenson & Wolpe (1960))


-----------------------------------

All of these PEER REVIEWED Studies show categorically that Homosexuality is not fixed an unchangeable.

Kind of goes against the propaganda that is put out there doesn't it?

(I have many more research abstracts that I can post if anyone wants.)

Who would consent unless their friends/family/coworkers made them feel like crap because of something they can't help.

ETA: SP post a link or something.

Exodus International (1978): The ministry selected 30 of their 800 members as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Two outside psychiatrists interviewed the 30 and found that only three were actually heterosexual. Subsequent to the study, two of the male founders of Exodus fell in love and were united in a union ceremony. They claimed that the Exodus program was "ineffective...not one person was healed." The conversion rate, based on the study is 3 in 800, on the order of 0.4%
bullet Masters and Johnson (1979): This study claimed an impressive conversion rate of 50 to 60% which was maintained for 5 years after treatment. Unfortunately, only five of the 67 participants (7%) began the study with a homosexual orientation. From the available data is quite possible that none of these five converted to heterosexuality. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.
bullet NARTH (1997): They studied 860 clients whose data was sent by 200 therapists who were members of the organization. When the subjects entered therapy, 68% identified themselves as totally or almost exclusively homosexual. It is not clear whether this referred to sexual behavior or sexual orientation. The actual percentage of homosexuals was not reported; most of the subjects might have been bisexual. When they left therapy, 33% said they were exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual. Again, it is unclear whether this refers to behavior or orientation. Again, the percentage of heterosexuals is unknown. Unfortunately, 63% of the subjects were still undergoing therapy at the time of the survey. Of greater interest would be the percentage of subjects who entered with a homosexual orientation, converted to bisexuality or heterosexuality, and were able to sustain their sexual orientation for, say, two years following therapy. The NARTH report did not track the results of those clients after therapy. It is possible that none of the subjects who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation was able to change their orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.
bullet Schroeder & Shidlo (in progress): This study is aiming at analyzing the experience of 200 people who have undergone conversion therapy. As of late 1997, they had studied 100 subjects. They reported a conversion rate of 0%.
bullet OCRT pilot study (2000): The sponsors of this web site surveyed each of the 36 websites of the GayChange WebRing. 3 These are mainly Internet sites created by individuals or small Christian ministries. From the sites' content, all appear to be Evangelical Christian in outlook. Of the 28 accessible web sites, only one reported what they felt were conversion success. They had two clients who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation, and decided during therapy to remain celibate. One entered therapy as a bisexual and has developed a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Neither actually changed their sexual orientation. The conversion rate of the Christian ministries sampled was 0%.
bullet Exodus International (2000): On 2000-JAN-21, the board of directors of the National Association of Social Workers issued a statement which condemned all therapies which attempt to change a person's sexual orientation. Exodus International (EI) offered a rebuttal to that statement. In his rebuttal, Bob Davies, North American director of EI wrote that:
bullet Over 250,000 individuals have contacted various EI offices inquiring about a sexual orientation change. This includes "gays, lesbians, family members, friends, counselors and pastors."
bullet Thousands of men and women have stopped homosexual behavior. That is, they have decided to become celibate. These are now "in the process of seeking deeper change in their sexual feelings and attractions."

Unfortunately, he does not estimate how many of these thousands of clients have actually changed their sexual orientation. On 2001-MAY-14, we Emailed EI asking for additional information. Davies does mention that some "are now happily married and raising children." However he does not give estimates of their number, nor does he indicate how many were entered EI as bisexuals and have remained with that sexual orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.
bullet Spitzer (2000): Dr. Robert Spitzer conducted a study of 143 "ex-gays" and 57 "ex-lesbians" who had reported that they had become "straight." In fact, the data shows that few are now heterosexual. He reported that 89% of the men and 63% of the subjects emerged from therapy still having feelings of attraction to persons of the same-sex. 16 (11%) of the men and 21 (37%) of the women report that they now have a heterosexual orientation. Again, it is not known how many entered therapy as bisexuals or as homosexuals.

A total of 86 of the 200 subjects were referred to Dr. Spitzer by conservative Christian groups specializing in homosexual ministry; NARTH referred 46 subjects; other sources provided 68. It is apparent that the individuals that Dr. Spitzer interviewed were hand-selected from a very large group of persons who had either a homosexuals or a bisexual orientation. The 46 subjects from NARTH might have been chosen as the most successful patients from as many as 250,000 individuals who entered therapy. Unfortunately, no data has been reported about the total number of persons from whom the 200 carefully selected patients were provided. Assuming that only 100,000 subjects were involved -- a VERY conservative figure, then 37 "success stories" represents a conversion rate of 0.04%

treating homosexuality? You don't treat homosexuality. You brainwash them into thinking they're something they're not.
Brainwashing is everywhere man, the guys in 2nd platoon say the government is trying to do something about it, but there's just too many groups involved in it (you want me to go into detail? I'd have to be tlaking instead of typing)

That's why they don't show normal TV in the rec room, just DVDs they say the advertissements can effect you mentally unless you mute the sound and don't look at them.

Damn thats alot of cutting and pasting SP. Links are better.

It is natural. I'm gay myself and I never make the choice to do so. I don't get why these bigots and people who say its a choice get that? Its not something you just make up...I can't help being it and I'm going to live my life this way because thats who I am. Plus if its a choice, does anyone have teh right to tell them they can't live that way? NO! It doesn't bring harm to anyone else and you can't control someones lifestyle. Especially when its unharmul and natural...

Sure...Homosexuality is natural. Just like downsyndrome.

(I didn't read the incredibly long posts)

I think I turned a teenage guy into a bisexual.

I didn't mean to, he just kinda thought I was groovy, he was ok, and at the time me and my male love were going at it like bunnies and he knew about it. Then he started saying he was gay, and we even told each other that we loved each (in a close-friends kind of way) and he's now decided he's bisexual.

I think my parents divorce had something to do with becoming sorta gay myself, I can't get into any kind of normal in depth 'lets move in and maybe get married someday' relationship with a girl, possibly because of how much heartbreak my old man suffered during and after the divorce. My mother has had about 20 boyfriends since then but my dad has been all alone.

The point is, I think I turned a guy gay is that bad?

nope. you just brought out his gay nature. if its doesnt work well for him i guess he'll just go back to girls.

nothing wrong with that either

Republican Australia']Sure...Homosexuality is natural. Just like downsyndrome.
Hey, are you raggin on downs boys now?

Jerk.

If its natural and unharmful, the far right it all over squashing it like a bug in the name of 'morals'.

Republican Australia']Sure...Homosexuality is natural. Just like downsyndrome.

This could be one of the following: An insult, sarcasm, or simply stating that homosexuality is a natural occurance.

Which is it, hmm?

ew dude why would you even talk about this Homosexualls are fucking grose

Hey, are you raggin on downs boys now?

Jerk.

No, its just every disease, and every failure in humanity (like Cancer etc) are all natural, because it happens to us.

Homosexuality is when the body gets things wrong and makes you attracted to the same sex, theres nothing wrong with it, but it definately not what God(if you believe in him, i for one dont) planned.

This could be one of the following: An insult, sarcasm, or simply stating that homosexuality is a natural occurance.

Which is it, hmm?
Shit no one told me this was going to be a multiple choice test.

If you note, some of the studies involved SPONTANEOUS change, without any treatment whatsoever.

The entire "just can't help it" is one that even many in the homosexual community are now rejecting.


“No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.” — Camille Paglia (Lesbian Author and Feminist Activist.)

Here is an entire website, mantained by homosexuals that admits the "genetic" and "Born that way" stories are simply false. (Let me guess, these homosexuals are just members of the "religious right" trying to hide the truth. :rolleyes: )

http://www.queerbychoice.com/

ew dude why would you even talk about this Homosexualls are fucking grose

good job. Nice spelling...clear and appropriate focus...excellent post.

Republican Australia']No, its just every disease, and every failure in humanity (like Cancer etc) are all natural, because it happens to us.

Homosexuality is when the body gets things wrong and makes you attracted to the same sex, theres nothing wrong with it, but it definately not what God(if you believe in him, i for one dont) planned.
Actually, homosexuality makes wonderful sense in populations that are over their carrying capacity, you in essense sacrifice your chance of having children to support that of your kin. Your genes still get passed along, possibly with greater potancy then if everyone tried to have lots of children.

I really don't much care... I don't recall choosing it, so you're going to have to work to convince me that I did.

The liberal media may have brainwashed you. {/sarcasm}

If you note, some of the studies involved SPONTANEOUS change, without any treatment whatsoever.

The entire "just can't help it" is one that even many in the homosexual community are now rejecting.


“No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.” — Camille Paglia (Lesbian Author and Feminist Activist.)

Here is an entire website, mantained by homosexuals that admits the "genetic" and "Born that way" stories are simply false. (Let me guess, these homosexuals are just members of the "religious right" trying to hide the truth. :rolleyes: )

http://www.queerbychoice.com/
WOW!

ONE ENTIRE WEBSITE!!?!!


WITH 150 MEMBERS!!!!

OMG. SUCH PROOF.

Cancer, Downsyndrome, they are all natural. But they are human flaws, like homosexuality.

Republican Australia']Cancer, Downsyndrome, they are all natural. But they are human flaws, like homosexuality.

How is it a 'flaw'? Seems to me that it's a highly logical method of natural population control.

You know what else is natural. The sun. And like the sun, homosexuals are the sweet bright womb that all life sprang from.

good job. Nice spelling...clear and appropriate focus...excellent post.You think i care bigot? In my country gays are shot for enjoyment.

Republican Australia']Cancer, Downsyndrome, they are all natural. But they are human flaws, like homosexuality.

Prove that it's a flaw. You might want to bear in mind that humans can choose whether they want to reproduce, and so the whole "unable to reproduce" argument is null. After all, there is adoption, surrogacy, and IVF.

You know what else is natural. The sun. And like the sun, homosexuals are the sweet bright womb that all life sprang from.

I dunno what's up with this, but it's funny :p.

You think i care bigot? In my country gays are shot for enjoyment.
Wow, that must be one stupid-ass country.

You think i care bigot? In my country gays are shot for enjoyment.

An ironic troll. Wonderful. Now, all we need is a tragic clown, and we're set.

You think i care bigot? In my country gays are shot for enjoyment.
Ah, a model gay-basher. You're only making your side look bad in civilized countries, you know.

I've never seen any bigger bigots...I bet you people in the 1700's be arguing for slavery as well. All the Conservative Christians back then supported and believed in slavery. Really they did...

Prove that it's a flaw. You might want to bear in mind that humans can choose whether they want to reproduce, and so the whole "unable to reproduce" argument is null. After all, there is adoption, surrogacy, and IVF.

Humans are designed to reproduce, thats why lots of men are lying bastards because they just want to spread their seed and it seems a lot of women believe them. When was IVF and Adoption natural?

You think i care bigot? In my country gays are shot for enjoyment.

Why am I a bigot? In my country, only gays can marry. Heterosexuals are just to undependable to be allowed to marry. Deviants, all of them (actually I'm not gay. Good thing I don't live in Burlia.)

Wow, that must be one stupid-ass country.No we just know how to run it right

One also has to explain the thousands of ex-homosexuals (that homosexuals desperately try to censor and abuse) that exist in the world today.

Just a few sites:

http://www.truthcomesout.com/
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/idoexist.asp
http://www.crosswalk.com/fun/movies/1287079.html
www.exodus-international.org/

You think i care bigot? In my country gays are shot for enjoyment.


Lusavia is the biggest hypocrite...arguing homosexuality is imoral and then would kill people over it. I just love how the people say homosexuality is imoral and gross use horrible and duragatory language and hateful demeanor..

It must be natural, or it wouldn't exist.

Unless you think homosexuals are supernatural, of course, but then you'd be both wrong and stupid.

that's completely wronge! there's many unnatural things, such as synthetic chemicals that exist.

yeah but saying something is natural doesn't mean it's right. ie Someone's testosterone levels are off the charts, so they go and kill someone. "oh it's okay, he was born that way" etc. or my personal favorite, its okay to kill you kids if you say "the spiders told me to do it" just plead insanity.

Lusavia is the biggest hypocrite...arguing homosexuality is imoral and then would kill people over it. I just love how the people say homosexuality is imoral and gross use horrible and duragatory language and hateful demeanor..It is, just thinking about what they do to each other? You can see me places bashing gays and making fun of them all the time. Im 100% gay basher.

How about this? A person is a homosexual, but is 'born again' and knows that he/she must abandon his/her lifestyle. They work through the motions of being straight and very loudly and publicly announce how they're ex-homosexuals. Just to please their new friends.

I had a couple of gay dogs once. They weren't even the same breed. It was the scandal of the backyard! :fluffle:
Well dogs will hump anything.

It doesn't exist in nature, except for the smarter animals. For most things it is simply a means for reproduction and not fun at all, so homosexual sex would be pointless, as it doesn't do what sex is meant for. They may make vague humping motions when no females are around, but no real sex.

However, bonobos, a very close relative of ours, have discovered sex for fun and will just fuck each other all the time. They are also the only other animal to do it in the missionary position.

Republican Australia']Humans are designed to reproduce, thats why lots of men are lying bastards because they just want to spread their seed and it seems a lot of women believe them. When was IVF and Adoption natural?

That humans are designed to reproduce is highly debatable. Maybe once upon a time, that was the case, but not any more. I'd say the point of people now would be to live their life however it best pleases them, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If we're only made for reproduction, how do you explain civilisation? It's completely un-necessary.

EDIT: Also, I couldn't give a monkeys what is and isn't un-natural.

No we just know how to run it right

What country do you live in?

I've never seen any bigger bigots...I bet you people in the 1700's be arguing for slavery as well. All the Conservative Christians back then supported and believed in slavery. Really they did...

You mean like Confederate General Robert E. Lee?

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

I have nothing against gay community (damn faggots) they have their ideas, I respect that (damn those guys enjoy it in the ass... :eek: ) yet i think homosexualism is not a disease is more like a choice (e.g I can eat hamburger or i choose to eat roast beef).

I know there are homosexuals that are "nice" people (Michael Jackson, aka soft gay) and are only focused on their careers. But there are homosexuals that are the very scum of this society those should be erradicated, i know it's their choice but it affects us, those homosexuals that walk behind you saying: "Nice ass baby, shake it! SHAKE IT SWEEATHEART!!" or those who when you are on the gym only look at your legs or breasts :fluffle:

What country do you live in?Take a guess

Lusavia is the biggest hypocrite...arguing homosexuality is imoral and then would kill people over it. I just love how the people say homosexuality is imoral and gross use horrible and duragatory language and hateful demeanor..

i'd say there is no morals, as those by definition are dependant on the point of view, and there is only one way of thinking that is right, so then morals are wronge by definition. i'm also for the death of homosexuals but don't use duragatory language at all. i don't say it's gross or immoral, just bad for society and nature. what is gross when nothing exists to begin with? (i just know that someone will say that i shouldn't be against homosexuality if nothing exists, but to that i say one word, axioms!)

yeah but saying something is natural doesn't mean it's right.
who decides whats right and whats wrong?

and, more importantly, why do you care what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom?

Because people think it's gross and try to justify it with morals.

Take a guess

Thats like saying I am thinking of a number between 1 and 100, take a guess. I would rather you just say it then making people go through a whole convoluted process.

and if your country is full of gay people you cant reproduce and then there are no people and the weak gays will be invaded by a mans country and they will all die.

I know there are homosexuals that are "nice" people (Michael Jackson, aka soft gay) and are only focused on their careers. But there are homosexuals that are the very scum of this society those should be erradicated, i know it's their choice but it affects us, those homosexuals that walk behind you saying: "Nice ass baby, shake it! SHAKE IT SWEEATHEART!!" or those who when you are on the gym only look at your legs or breasts :fluffle:
how is that any different from a guy saying it to a woman who doesnt fancy him?

Thats like saying I am thinking of a number between 1 and 100, take a guess. I would rather you just say it then making people go through a whole convoluted process.

He runs the country that he's named after.

Looks my response got deleted or somthing, so here goes again:

From a biological POV, couplings of males and females are the norm - same sex copulation is an aberration (and before you get your PC knickers in a knot, look up the dictionary meaning of aberration)...

And before you cite examples of the animal kingdom, homosexuality in the animal kingdom is a rarity. "Exclusively homosexual" animals are so rare as to be almost nonexistant - the vast majority of sexually aberrant behaviour in the animal kingdom is "bisexual" i.e. animals "do it" with either sex because it feels good.

This has nothing to do with my personal views of homosexuality - I have no problem with gay people or their lifestyles. I am speaking purely from a biological point of view.

My 2 cents - take it or leave it.

and if your country is full of gay people you cant reproduce and then there are no people and the weak gays will be invaded by a mans country and they will all die.
gays are infertile?

learn something new every day

who decides whats right and whats wrong?

and, more importantly, why do you care what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom?

The thing is they don't want to keep it in their own bedroom. Some homosexuals treat themselves as a separate entity to the rest of society and want the same 'rights' as other members of society. Some of them are paranoid about being discriminated against. While they may be discriminated against in some cases, I think most of them are just paranoid. And trying to squabble about separate rights but no separate duties make them annoying.

It is natural. I'm gay myself and I never make the choice to do so. I don't get why these bigots and people who say its a choice get that? Its not something you just make up...I can't help being it and I'm going to live my life this way because thats who I am. Plus if its a choice, does anyone have teh right to tell them they can't live that way? NO! It doesn't bring harm to anyone else and you can't control someones lifestyle. Especially when its unharmul and natural...

no one's trying to tell you that you can't live that way. I thought we're just here to discuss whether it is natural/genetic...

<snip>
Jeez did homosexuals kick your dog and steal your cat when you were a kid?

They Want The Same Rights???!!!!?!!!!!?!??!!?!?!!!!!!!!!?!!!!!!

how is that any different from a guy saying it to a woman who doesnt fancy him?

Well i think it's rather natural to admire the beauty of women, i know this will sound both stupid and old fashioned " God created male and female , not male and male " i'd like to see your reaction if another man is watching your body with the deepest perversion you could imagine (if you are a guy)

if it exists in humans doesnt it have to be "natural"?

can we really do anything that is against our nature?

We repress sexuality in public in a live setting.
We live in built cities
We developed written law

Technically all of these are against our nature.

But that's besides the point
You damn well better beleive being gay is natural. Doesn't mean everyone is, but does mean some are, and it's fine. END

And yes, there are examples of homosexuality in nature.
The third post has examples.

There. Left side wins. Eat me :headbang:

You think i care bigot? In my country gays are shot for enjoyment.

What country is that sweety?

Well i think it's rather natural to admire the beauty of women, i know this will sound both stupid and old fashioned " God created male and female , not male and male " i'd like to see your reaction if another man is watching your body with the deepest perversion you could imagine (if you are a guy)

Funny so when I am looking at a woman i am watching her with the deepest perversion they could imagine?

If god intended us to hump the same sex i dont think any of us would be here today, being gay will be the downfall of many socities

i.e. The Fab5- you know where 5 gay guys remake a straight guy or w/e (isnt it called that?)

it's making smaller childeren think that it is ok to be gay so then the human race will become extinct........

and if your gay it should be a law that you should get your penis chopped off since you have no pratical use for it.....and women can be gay thats ok with me as long as there not ugly

ive seen ugly lesibians.....i emptied my stomach of the last 20 years......

I don't care if I'm that nights fantasy, it doesn't concern me. Let it be.

ETA: Assuming there's a god. And when you assume...

The thing is they don't want to keep it in their own bedroom. Some homosexuals treat themselves as a separate entity to the rest of society and want the same 'rights' as other members of society. Some of them are paranoid about being discriminated against. While they may be discriminated against in some cases, I think most of them are just paranoid. And trying to squabble about separate rights but no separate duties make them annoying.

Erm... This doesn't make too much sense.

What's wrong with homosexuals wanting the same rights as heterosexuals? And they have a reason to be so paranoid, with all the religious zealots on this planet. And what "separate rights"?

Well i think it's rather natural to admire the beauty of women, i know this will sound both stupid and old fashioned " God created male and female , not male and male " i'd like to see your reaction if another man is watching your body with the deepest perversion you could imagine (if you are a guy)

I'd enjoy that very much, thank you.

I am not so sure that homosexuality is "natural" - however neither is wearing clothes and many other aspects of human behaviour.

I would not think it as natural as there is no reproductive advantage that be had by being gay. Two men (or two women for that matter) cannot reproduce and pass on their genes - as such I doubt it can be termed as natural.

Homosexuality is fine so long as it is not promoted above heterosexuality as it is quite clear which model produces a more stable life for any children brought into the world.

The thing is they don't want to keep it in their own bedroom. Some homosexuals treat themselves as a separate entity to the rest of society and want the same 'rights' as other members of society. Some of them are paranoid about being discriminated against. While they may be discriminated against in some cases, I think most of them are just paranoid. And trying to squabble about separate rights but no separate duties make them annoying.


Do straight people keep it in their own bedroom? I must have a malfunctioning TV, because I'm pretty sure I see straight people flaunting their own sexuality all the time.


And guess what. I was outside a few days ago... and I seen a man and a woman kissing in public. I mean really. If gay people are to "keep it in the bedroom", then so should straight people. I'm of the opinion that neither side should.

Secondly, you contradict yourself in the post. You say firstly that gays want equal rights, then go onto say they want seperate rights. I've yet to meet a homosexual who wanted to be treated above anyone else. You'll find that we just want to be treated the same as any other person.

You mean like Confederate General Robert E. Lee?

[i] Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:



Hey one website and now a person who thought slavery was bad. You go girl!

I love these threads. People using the "homosexuality happens with animals, so it MUST be natural" arguments are the best. You know what else is even more natural and happens with animals? Dominant males defeating or killing their rivals in order to mate with females.

By the "animals/natural" argument, I should be able to go to a club, find the guy with the hottest chick there, beat his ass and/or kill him, take his woman and impregnate her right there in the middle of the club. Animals do pretty much the same thing, so it must be natural. Problem is, I would go to jail for doing that.

Why should I be put in jail for that? It's natural.

The thing is they don't want to keep it in their own bedroom. Some homosexuals treat themselves as a separate entity to the rest of society and want the same 'rights' as other members of society.
how does wanting equal rights make them a seperate entity?

surely by refusing them the same rights as others you are making them a seperate entity yourself?

This is my first post on a thread on homosexuallity, so please don't abuse me too much. I don't claim to be educated on the psychological origins of homosexuality, so don't count my opinion for much.

I would consider myself to be a rather conservative Catholic. I am under no illusions that homosexual feelings are "chosen", I believe that people are born with them, and that they are not the kind of thing you can "drive out" of a person. As such, while I do believe homosexuallity is disordered, I do not believe that being homosexual is a sin of any kind.

If god intended us to hump the same sex i dont think any of us would be here today, being gay will be the downfall of many socities

i.e. The Fab5- you know where 5 gay guys remake a straight guy or w/e (isnt it called that?)

it's making smaller childeren think that it is ok to be gay so then the human race will become extinct........

and if your gay it should be a law that you should get your penis chopped off since you have no pratical use for it.....and women can be gay thats ok with me as long as there not ugly

ive seen ugly lesibians.....i emptied my stomach of the last 20 years......

I think the entire history of Rome destroys that downfall of socities crap.

Erm... This doesn't make too much sense.

What's wrong with homosexuals wanting the same rights as heterosexuals? And they have a reason to be so paranoid, with all the religious zealots on this planet. And what "separate rights"?

They DO have the same rights as heterosexuals. They get to vote, they get to work, they get to deal with their own business in the bedroom, they even get to kiss publicly (which is sick. not just homosexuals, but heterosexuals necking in public is also disgusting). Many of them are just paranoid.

Well i think it's rather natural to admire the beauty of women, i know this will sound both stupid and old fashioned " God created male and female , not male and male " i'd like to see your reaction if another man is watching your body with the deepest perversion you could imagine (if you are a guy)
I would take it as a compliment that i was thought to be attractive.

i'd like to see your reaction if another man is watching your body with the deepest perversion you could imagine (if you are a guy)
What if you're doing the same to a lesbian couple? Isn't that what you straight guys always do? I think that couple would get up and leave.

If god intended us to hump the same sex i dont think any of us would be here today, being gay will be the downfall of many socities


Wow you know what God thinks?

If god intended us to hump the same sex i dont think any of us would be here today, being gay will be the downfall of many socities

Welcome to Rome. We used to control a large empire where we didnt care about homosexuality. Then one day we became Christian...we didnt last long after that. Oh well.

I think the entire history of Rome destroys that downfall of socities crap.Economic that is the most stupid thing i have ever heard before, it even has less thought than my posts.

They DO have the same rights as heterosexuals. They get to vote, they get to work, they get to deal with their own business in the bedroom, they even get to kiss publicly (which is sick. not just homosexuals, but heterosexuals necking in public is also disgusting). Many of them are just paranoid.

What about marriage, and the benefits associated with it? Why should someone be deprived of that? Not to mention being deprived of what many people consider to be a very strong profession of love for the other. it serves no logical purpose to restrict it.

noone chooses to be attracted to the same sex,they just are. the only choice they have is what they do about it and how they choose to deal with it for the rest of their lives: truth or denial?

the same can be said for all other sexualities including necrophilia,pedophilia,zoophilia,etc. genetics determines before you are born how you will be programmed for sex. society may be able to make you repress it to some degree,but it wont change who you are inside.


maybe we should start asking why these "deviant" desires keep popping up century after century despite the violent oppression of anything not deemed "normal." does it keep occuring for a reason? does it serve a function we havent realized yet? attacking fellow humans for being different is not the answer. if they commit a crime like rape,then put them away,but do it because of the law that was broken,not because of how they think and feel. rape is always wrong,even when done by a "normal" heterosexual. attacking someone based on how they think and feel goes against the ideals of a "civilized" society...

I think the entire history of Rome destroys that downfall of socities crap.

who the fuck said rome was gay? ceaser was murdered you dumb fuck

They DO have the same rights as heterosexuals. They get to vote, they get to work, they get to deal with their own business in the bedroom, they even get to kiss publicly (which is sick. not just homosexuals, but heterosexuals necking in public is also disgusting). Many of them are just paranoid.

They got a lot of the same rights. Not all of the same rights. That's what they want --- Complete equality.

Once again: They have a reason to be paranoid. What are their friends going to think of them if they "come out of the closet"? Will they be pursued by nutjob religious groups? Will they lose the rights they once had?

It's more complicated than you think.

Economic that is the most stupid thing i have ever heard before, it even has less thought than my posts.

Really why? Homosexuality was common in Rome and it was the most powerful empire at a period of history that few if any other countries have come to rival.

I love these threads. People using the "homosexuality happens with animals, so it MUST be natural" arguments are the best. You know what else is even more natural and happens with animals? Dominant males defeating or killing their rivals in order to mate with females.

By the "animals/natural" argument, I should be able to go to a club, find the guy with the hottest chick there, beat his ass and/or kill him, take his woman and impregnate her right there in the middle of the club. Animals do pretty much the same thing, so it must be natural. Problem is, I would go to jail for doing that.

Why should I be put in jail for that? It's natural.

Hmmm comparing apples and oranges are we?

Oh wait isn't this called a strawman?

who the fuck said rome was gay? ceaser was murdered you dumb fuck
are these meant to be two unrelated points?

what does Caesar have to do with anything?

Welcome to Rome. We used to control a large empire where we didnt care about homosexuality. Then one day we became Christian...we didnt last long after that. Oh well.

to further a point. Welcome to Athens and the rest of the Hellenic cities. We had a liberal attitude towards sex, and homosexuality, and practically created western culture. Or Sparta. We were so powerful that we only fell when we just got plain too big and nasty.

Wow you know what God thinks?

That is why this discussion is just two sides doing this: :headbang:

The two sides disagree on one fundamental point, and no-one is gonna go anywhere while this disagreement exists.

Funny so when I am looking at a woman i am watching her with the deepest perversion they could imagine?

Not perversion but desire perhaps if you like her, let's go to basic biology there are only two sexual systems, as someone said before obviously homosexuals can't procreate the mother nature is never wrong, now let's move to another subject we all know that we are born with men and women pheromones if women pheromones are predominant on us we are what people call gay.

Look what i wrote earlier was sarcasm i don't really have anything against homosexuals, not unless they start freaking me out or bothering me. Actually i have some classmates who are homosexuals one of them gets his ass kicked every day because he goes behind you and grabs your ass the other one is respected and loved because he is a good human being but still is looked like some sort of freak.

are these meant to be two unrelated points?

what does Caesar have to do with anything?

someone other dumbass related to rome

/shrug

Welcome to Rome. We used to control a large empire where we didnt care about homosexuality. Then one day we became Christian...we didnt last long after that. Oh well.

*gives a middle finger to Constantine*

who the fuck said rome was gay? ceaser was murdered you dumb fuck

Well it might interest you to know homosexuals served in the Legions and it was an open accepted act.

someone other dumbass related to rome

/shrug
yes, Rome, who controlled a huge empire for several hundred years, where homosexuality was accepted

now, what does Caesar have to do with anything?

Caesar was murdered so it wasn't gay? Caligula (before and after the crazy began) had LOTS of orgies involving nothing but men. Old men regularly had young men (16-23 about) as lovers. They didn't care.

yes, Rome, who controlled a huge empire for several hundred years, where homosexuality was accepted

now, what does Caesar have to do with anything?

He makes a mean salad?

Well it might interest you to know homosexuals served in the Legions and it was an open accepted act.

in France?

rofl im good

Hmmm comparing apples and oranges are we?

Oh wait isn't this called a strawman?
It's not a strawman... it directly relates to the "naturality" argument. People are saying homosexuality is natural. I just pointed out something else that was completely natural.

That is why this discussion is just two sides doing this: :headbang:

The two sides disagree on one fundamental point, and no-one is gonna go anywhere while this disagreement exists.

Well it left being a scientifical debate to a become a morality talk.

So far the one posted "data" is research from 35+ years ago sponsored by Religious groups(Well I should say the couple I scanned ;) ).

Really why? Homosexuality was common in Rome and it was the most powerful empire at a period of history that few if any other countries have come to rival.Because Rome died from all the gay people cuse they were all weak and stupid.

Russia has an anti-gay act for their military.

America then created an anti-gay act to follow suit.

I'm not sure if it was taken away or made less overt though.

I'm bi, another dude in my platoon is gay, no one actually cares as long as we don't act like retarded gay poofs. If we did we wouldn't last very long.

I hate people that act gay (I think the term is camp but probably not)

in France?

rofl im good

Well they did fight the Goths.

Smart ass. ;)

Well it left being a scientifical debate to a become a morality talk.

So far the one posted "data" is research from 35+ years ago sponsored by Religious groups(Well I should say the couple I scanned ;) ).
Hey!

I counterposted with studies from 2000!

of course we're natural!!!! my biggest problem is why heteroseual paople think they have the right to pass judgement on us and have the moral highground to decide for us, if it's right or wrong. also, what's with the fascination about us and our lives, perhaps they really want to be like us but don't have the courage.......... :fluffle:

Because Rome died from all the gay people cuse they were all weak and stupid.

this is a widley acclamied idea by many historians

There was always a Roman Transvestite cult that was openly allowed. If the followers had been unfaithful, they would cut off their own gentillia.

"If god intended us to hump the same sex i dont think any of us would be here today, being gay will be the downfall of many socities"

we do many things that are seemingly unnatural. do you think "God" wanted us to go to space or polute our world with toxic waste?

ignorance,hate,and greed are ALWAYS what causes problems,not human sexualities.


last i heard,"God" wanted us to enjoy the life he gave us and love one another...even the gays. of course,most christians forget that part. theyd rather be paranoid,hateful biggots who think they are somehow better than the rest. that is not the path to heaven. love and forgiveness.

Because Rome died from all the gay people cuse they were all weak and stupid.

Really I thought it was the over extension of the Roman empire combined with the increase of Barbarian activity?

this is a widley acclamied idea by many historians
:rolleyes:

Because Rome died from all the gay people cuse they were all weak and stupid.
Rome became Christian and fell within a couple of hundred of years.

They were pagan and accepted homosexuality for hundreds of years, and thats when they were at their most powerful

you were saying?

this is a widley acclamied idea by many historians
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*gasp*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

This is my first post on a thread on homosexuallity, so please don't abuse me too much. I don't claim to be educated on the psychological origins of homosexuality, so don't count my opinion for much.

I would consider myself to be a rather conservative Catholic. I am under no illusions that homosexual feelings are "chosen", I believe that people are born with them, and that they are not the kind of thing you can "drive out" of a person. As such, while I do believe homosexuallity is disordered, I do not believe that being homosexual is a sin of any kind.

ur a conservative catholic and u don't think that homosexuality is a sin? Has the pope now decided that his authority is big enough that he can re-write parts of the Bible now?

Gay people aren't weak and stupid. Rome fell because it split. Your arguments are all insults. All of them. You yourself seem weak and stupid.

You weak, stupid asshat.

this is a widley acclamied idea by many historians

Oh? Which ones?

Really I thought it was the over extension of the Roman empire combined with the increase of Barbarian activity?


:rolleyes:


Might also be the fact they were still using Legions when the mounted archer appeared.....

But let's not hijack the thread......ahh hell why not? ;)

Because Rome died from all the gay people cuse they were all weak and stupid.

Your trolling tactics are very poor and unrefined.

Rome fell because of Christianity. Why? The Church gained more power than the senate, and began to make both military and civil decisions. It got so bad that the Church even controlled the last batch of emperors, all thanks to Constantine, "The Great".

Oh yes, pulling the Legions from the front to defend the borders will really help matters. Yeah, just let the "barbarians" settle in those areas. Nothing will happen.

Oh? Which ones?

rome being weak and stupid because their gay thats why they died look what i quoted dammit im fed up with it and you dam communists

There was always a Roman Transvestite cult that was openly allowed. If the followers had been unfaithful, they would cut off their own gentillia.

Actually no. That cult existed, however, that was the initiation into the cult wholesale. They cut their genitals off, ran down the streets, and cast them into the open doors of houses. Recieving these would be taken as a token of good luck, and the cultist would be adopted into the family in a lavish ceremony.

Gay people aren't weak and stupid. Rome fell because it split. Your arguments are all insults. All of them. You yourself seem weak and stupid.

You weak, stupid asshat.YES THEY ARE YOU FUCKING BIGOT, get your facts straight. WTF is an asshat you idiot. Rome fell because too many gay people were around and they ruined everything just like they will do to other countries that accept them.

Hmm, my buddy Mike is gay, and he killed a guy in a bar fight with a single punch (something about brain hemorhaging? or something) and he's a sharshooter currently in Iraq. He studies scientific stuff as a hobby and has made explosives at home.

If you called him weak and stupid he'd jut kinda pick you up by the throat and throw you to one side.

Burlia - please don't feed the troll. he's not worth the trouble of you being banned - mods don't make the distinction. Flaming is flaming is flaming, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong"

Actually no. That cult existed, however, that was the initiation into the cult wholesale. They cut their genitals off, ran down the streets, and cast them into the open doors of houses. Recieving these would be taken as a token of good luck, and the cultist would be adopted into the family in a lavish ceremony.
Sigh...knowing the Italians and their obsession with penii, I wouldn't be surprised.

YES THEY ARE YOU FUCKING BIGOT

Hello Mr. Pot i would like to introduce you to my friend Mr. Kettle. Pot Kettle. Kettle Pot.

Hmm, my buddy Mike is gay, and he killed a guy in a bar fight with a single punch (something about brain hemorhaging? or something) and he's a sharshooter currently in Iraq. He studies scientific stuff as a hobby and has made explosives at home.

If you called him weak and stupid he'd jut kinda pick you up by the throat and throw you to one side.

ya i make bombs at home all the time too real simple really

and i can shoot a gun to

Your trolling tactics are very poor and unrefined.

Rome fell because of Christianity. Why? The Church gained more power than the senate, and began to make both military and civil decisions. It got so bad that the Church even controlled the last batch of emperors, all thanks to Constantine, "The Great".If ceaser was never assinated rome would still rule today. Why? becuase the rulers after him were all gay.

YES THEY ARE YOU FUCKING BIGOT, get your facts straight. WTF is an asshat you idiot. Rome fell because too many gay people were around and they ruined everything just like they will do to other countries that accept them.
even though it didnt fall until it was Christian controlled?

If ceaser was never assinated rome would still rule today. Why? becuase the rulers after him were all gay.
All of them?

Hello Mr. Pot i would like to introduce you to my friend Mr. Kettle. Pot Kettle. Kettle Pot.Your even more of an idiot than me.............thats sad

rome being weak and stupid because their gay thats why they died look what i quoted dammit im fed up with it and you dam communists

Which historians?

If ceaser was never assinated rome would still rule today. Why? becuase the rulers after him were all gay.
even though the assassination of Caesar led to the empire?

YES THEY ARE YOU FUCKING BIGOT, get your facts straight. WTF is an asshat you idiot. Rome fell because too many gay people were around and they ruined everything just like they will do to other countries that accept them.

Yeah, I better get the facts straight. Rome fell because it split into East and West.

I am stating facts.

You are presenting idocy as your opinion by only insulting people largly not present. You have poor typing and/or spelling. You present falacies as fact. All that equals stupid.

You do not have the mental strength to refrain from keeping this a debate and not insult people not present. You may be pussaint but you are weak.

Stupid and insulting=asshat.

All of them?

i wonder if theyd make prostitues legal and butt fucking in streets too i wouldnt be able to walk the streets without a dam gun and knife

you daont want to know what the knoife is for

even though it didnt fall until it was Christian controlled?Christians are gay, they are not under tight enough rule so they all become gay and backstabb their own kind.

Your even more of an idiot than me.............thats sad

Whats sad is someone openly admitting they are an idiot. :rolleyes:

Christians are gay, they are not under tight enough rule so they all become gay and backstabb their own kind.

Okay, this has become just plain pathetic.

Christians are gay, they are not under tight enough rule so they all become gay and backstabb their own kind.
Yep. Troll.

Whats sad is someone openly admitting they are an idiot. :rolleyes:

at least hes not mental like you

Yeah, I better get the facts straight. Rome fell because it split into East and West.

I am stating facts.

You are presenting idocy as your opinion by only insulting people largly not present. You have poor typing and/or spelling. You present falacies as fact. All that equals stupid.

You do not have the mental strength to refrain from keeping this a debate and not insult people not present. You may be pussaint but you are weak.

Stupid and insulting=asshat.They split becuase the gay people in the government disagreed with the normals. THEY SPLIT BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Idiots like you ruin governements and countries like bush is doing to amerika.

You don't know anything about Rome. Es magnus stultus sine sapientia.

We've gotten totally off topic here...I'm sorry...but this thread is just getting gay...



this thread :sniper: trolls

at least hes not mental like you

I pity the poor shades confined to the Euclidean prison that is sanity. Sarcasm

You don't know anything about Rome. Es magnus stultus sine sapientia.Who are you to say who knows what? your an idiot. Once you show me that you lived durning the times then you can say something. Idiot.

You don't know anything about Rome. Es magnus stultus sine sapientia.

sorry i didnt bother studying every languae ever created

how bout this one?

DUMB ASS!!!!!

O.K. I think that gays are born that way. Who doesn't?

It's fucking Latin you retarded dumbfuck. Learn something. Every language? How fucking stupid do you have to be?? I hope you get molested you fat shit.

sorry i didnt bother studying every languae ever created

how bout this one?

DUMB ASS!!!!!

The bold part makes that statement painfully obvious.

The bold part makes that statement painfully obvious.

hey im speed typing and talking to like 18 different people via IM

Who are you to say who knows what? your an idiot. Once you show me that you lived durning the times then you can say something. Idiot.
theres this subject, you might have heard of it.

its called history

you know, the one where you study the past?

...


...


...


yes! there we go, i knew you would get it at last!

That's your problem

hey im speed typing and talking to like 18 different people via IM
Multitasking is a bitch isnt it.

theres this subject, you might have heard of it.

its called history

you know, the one where you study the past?

...


...


...


yes! there we go, i knew you would get it at last!How do you kno any of this is true? A lot of it is fake stories and a lot of documents were burned idiot.

How do you kno any of this is true? A lot of it is fake stories and a lot of documents were burned idiot.

Gee I wonder what kind of people did the burning.... :rolleyes:

Multitasking is a bitch isnt it.
it can be ......

Gee I wonder what kind of people did the burning.... :rolleyes:Gays and barbarians

This particular troll / flame / bait fest is now closed. I'm too tired to process all the warnings / forumbans / deletions at the moment, but I imagine we'll get to it.

Please don't start another one of these, folks. This gets wearisome.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Official Warnings as follows:
Mithra1488, post 19, flamebaiting
Lusavia, post 87, 162, 180, 189, 203 flaming, trolling, flamebaiting
Ukobackia, post 145, 153, 178, 204, flaming
Burlia, post 174, 192, 205, flaming
/ Official Warnings

You last three, your next offense will result in a forumban or deletion, mod's option. If you can't be civil, you can't be here. READ the rules link in my signature BEFORE you post again. Are we clear?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop


PS: Aryanus, Sovereign Providence, and CSW, learn to use links instead of massive copy/paste. Especially unattributed copy/paste.