Political Crossfire Forums

[JDHURF]

Individuals who claim homosexuals can choose between “being gay” and being strait willy nilly are so full of misinformation that it is hard to engage in an intellectually honest discussion with them. These sorts of statements always beg the question: did you choose to be straight? Do you have as much an urge to be gay as you do to be straight? If not then there is necessarily a stronger urge for either sexual orientation and clearly one has a natural inclination to choose the stronger urge. Meaning that even lending credence to the scientifically invalid notion that sexual orientation is a “choice” that can be reversed at whim one is clearly more inclined to choose one orientation over the other on a basis that is not within their means to dictate.

[F'losrix]

George W Bush wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote:

we agree to disagree.

you have your experiences, and I read about many otherwise.

I reject your claim reparative therapy does not work. There is alot of people who can disagree with you. NARTH has links.

Dont write them off as having an agenda besides wanting to be who they are regardless of how much pride another gay person may have.
If they were merely 'being who they are', would we be hearing about them? No. The poster children of the ex-gay movement that NARTH and others like to trot out are very much props for political propaganda.

You're right, we'll have to agree to disagree, 'cuz I'm not budging and apparently neither are you.

[Enoch]

George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: You have an extraordinarily distrorted view of me if you accuse me of not accepting people. My whole basis for calling your sites biased is because of the nature of the organizations reporting the information. Using NARTH to back up your claims that people can, somehow, change sexual orientations is ridiculous. It is an organization whose sole reason for existence is to change gay men and women "back" in to straight individuals. Whether or not that can be done, I don't know but am disinclined to believe.

NARTH is a biased organization, therefore the information they put forth is biased as well. If there are people that NARTH claim turned straight who, later, returned to being gay do you really think that the fine people at NARTH would report that? No, because it would go against their goal. It is tantamount to using PETA as a definitive source on animal cruelty. Since that is one of PETA's prime missions, it is exceedingly unlikely that they would post information that contradicts their claims. Neutrality in source citation is the key to proper debate. So, before you get on your soapbox about what kind of person I am and my motives, I would ask you to do something: examine the reasons I have stated for not trusting NARTH, find a neutral source, and then come back here and try to tout your knowledge on the matter.

NARTHs "agenda" is to help people. Someone said (maybe it was you) they are a "catholic" orginization. Where on their site does this say this? In particular, where is it in their organizational policy webpage can you cite this? Quite frankly, I dont think youve given it much of a read. Most of it is interesting.

Just as with everything else in life, there will be areas where you do not support all philosophies/beliefs. One of Narth's statements is in regards to their belief that same-sex marriage is not good. I dont support this ideal.
Does this mean I shouldn't support their motivation to help people who want help?

In regards to the citation that Narth does not document the cases where people rebound into their homosexual role, why should they? That says more about their intention for happiness of others than of some sadistic cover-up operation. In other words NARTH respects and advocates a persons choices. I am sure they highlight the difficulties and struggles one may face when choosing to change their sexuality. However, any seed of doubt - such as telling someone, "you cannot do this. because I said so. and I should know, because i tried and it did not work" is a selfish, ego-inflated, pompous mindset.

Theres a broader spectrum of orientation than hetero's and homo's believe. This is what NART proposes. However, they have their opinions, and I dont have to agree with everyone of them. I do agree that people can change, and the only reference to that is on the inside. No weblink, encyclopedia or doctor can back that up. When someone tells their story about changing their sexuality, how on earth do you have the right to tell them they are wrong, and their methods are bs?
First, I never stated anything about NARTH being a Catholic organization. I don't know, nor care, about their religious affiliations.

Second, I have also never stated that someone who claims to have been gay, and then became straight, is wrong. I am saying that NARTH is not a credible place to gather the information. I am sorry if you do not understand that.

Finally, I am disinclined to believe that the people who claim to have been homosexual, and are now heterosexual, ever were either. I am more inclined to believe that they were, and are, bisexual and are choosing to repress one part of their sexuality while playing up another part.

What you don't seem to understand is that I am not attacking the content of the information, but rather the credibility of the source.

[George W Bush]

UrielsFyre wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not attacking the content of the information, but rather the credibility of the source.

then you agree that people can change if they want to.
thats all I need.

[George W Bush]

JDHURF wrote: Individuals who claim homosexuals can choose between “being gay” and being strait willy nilly are so full of misinformation that it is hard to engage in an intellectually honest discussion with them. These sorts of statements always beg the question: did you choose to be straight? Do you have as much an urge to be gay as you do to be straight? If not then there is necessarily a stronger urge for either sexual orientation and clearly one has a natural inclination to choose the stronger urge. Meaning that even lending credence to the scientifically invalid notion that sexual orientation is a “choice” that can be reversed at whim one is clearly more inclined to choose one orientation over the other on a basis that is not within their means to dictate.

Not all homosexuals can change. Not all heterosexuals can change.
but, it they want to - dont you think we should try to help them? Dont you believe the stories of people who have chosen to change? or are you convinced they are lying to themselves?

[Enoch]

George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not attacking the content of the information, but rather the credibility of the source.

then you agree that people can change if they want to.
thats all I need. That is a misrepresentation of my comment. What I am saying is that the content of the information you presented is not being attacked, because I have not read it nor do I care to. The reason I have not read it is that it is coming from a biased source. Once the source appears neutral, I will read and critique the information found therein.

In addition, on the general subject of "can people change sexualities," my firm belief is that no, they can not. I believe those who claim they were gay and are now straight were, in fact, never either of the two. They are, in my opinion, likely bisexual and repressing one part of their sexuality in favor of the other.

[George W Bush]

UrielsFyre wrote: George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not attacking the content of the information, but rather the credibility of the source.

then you agree that people can change if they want to.
thats all I need. That is a misrepresentation of my comment. What I am saying is that the content of the information you presented is not being attacked, because I have not read it nor do I care to. The reason I have not read it is that it is coming from a biased source. Once the source appears neutral, I will read and critique the information found therein.

In addition, on the general subject of "can people change sexualities," my firm belief is that no, they can not. I believe those who claim they were gay and are now straight were, in fact, never either of the two. They are, in my opinion, likely bisexual and repressing one part of their sexuality in favor of the other.

And if someone reads something about sexuality from PFLAG, that would constitue a biased source - would it not? What is the basis of your assumption with NARTH. Was it because "someone told you"? Thats naive, dont you think?

Your "firm belief" plays no part in reality in people who have changed. In other words, you can play expert-homosexual all your want but another persons subjective experience does not have to be approved by you or the APA. You are not that person and you've got no right to say that because it doesnt work for you (sexuality preference change), that it wont work for someone that wants it.

[Enoch]

George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not attacking the content of the information, but rather the credibility of the source.

then you agree that people can change if they want to.
thats all I need. That is a misrepresentation of my comment. What I am saying is that the content of the information you presented is not being attacked, because I have not read it nor do I care to. The reason I have not read it is that it is coming from a biased source. Once the source appears neutral, I will read and critique the information found therein.

In addition, on the general subject of "can people change sexualities," my firm belief is that no, they can not. I believe those who claim they were gay and are now straight were, in fact, never either of the two. They are, in my opinion, likely bisexual and repressing one part of their sexuality in favor of the other.

And if someone reads something about sexuality from PFLAG, that would constitue a biased source - would it not? What is the basis of your assumption with NARTH. Was it because "someone told you"? Thats naive, dont you think?

Your "firm belief" plays no part in reality in people who have changed. In other words, you can play expert-homosexual all your want but another persons subjective experience does not have to be approved by you or the APA. You are not that person and you've got no right to say that because it doesnt work for you (sexuality preference change), that it wont work for someone that wants it. Yes, PFLAG would be biased. What's your point?

Oh, and no need to get snide here. I am not trying to "play expert-homosexual." I am simply stating that I don't believe it is possible to change sexuality. You seem to be of the opinion that it is. So, does that mean you are playing expert-heterosexual?

The point I was really making was that if you want to bring evidence, even something as weak as anecdotal evidence, to the table then you better be prepared to have it stand up to inspection. And, so far, you seem unwilling to accept that NARTH could be anything but beyond reproach. I'm sorry if you don't see it, but they are a biased organization...just as PFLAG would be.

[George W Bush]

UrielsFyre wrote: George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not attacking the content of the information, but rather the credibility of the source.

then you agree that people can change if they want to.
thats all I need. That is a misrepresentation of my comment. What I am saying is that the content of the information you presented is not being attacked, because I have not read it nor do I care to. The reason I have not read it is that it is coming from a biased source. Once the source appears neutral, I will read and critique the information found therein.

In addition, on the general subject of "can people change sexualities," my firm belief is that no, they can not. I believe those who claim they were gay and are now straight were, in fact, never either of the two. They are, in my opinion, likely bisexual and repressing one part of their sexuality in favor of the other.

And if someone reads something about sexuality from PFLAG, that would constitue a biased source - would it not? What is the basis of your assumption with NARTH. Was it because "someone told you"? Thats naive, dont you think?

Your "firm belief" plays no part in reality in people who have changed. In other words, you can play expert-homosexual all your want but another persons subjective experience does not have to be approved by you or the APA. You are not that person and you've got no right to say that because it doesnt work for you (sexuality preference change), that it wont work for someone that wants it. Yes, PFLAG would be biased. What's your point?

Oh, and no need to get snide here. I am not trying to "play expert-homosexual." I am simply stating that I don't believe it is possible to change sexuality. You seem to be of the opinion that it is. So, does that mean you are playing expert-heterosexual?

The point I was really making was that if you want to bring evidence, even something as weak as anecdotal evidence, to the table then you better be prepared to have it stand up to inspection. And, so far, you seem unwilling to accept that NARTH could be anything but beyond reproach. I'm sorry if you don't see it, but they are a biased organization...just as PFLAG would be.

Lets forget organizations like PFLAG and NARTH for a second.

My "snide"ness was based on the arrogance I felt from your post: "Once the source appears neutral, I will read and critique the information found therein."
As if someone must do something to make something "APPEAR" neutral. You worded it like you were ROYAL or something. Or that you are part of a panel of experts that must review evidence worthy enough to approve of the way a person believes they can change themselves.

Regardless, You are not willing to accept someones opinion that your sexuality CANNOT be changed. Which is fine.

You are also not willing to accept someones citation that THEIR sexuality CAN be changed.

Why is that?

Since you refuse to read anything that "does not pass your test of neutrility", then how the hell can you have any opinion about another persons personal perspective? I'm not the one saying you are wrong for feeling the way you do. But you will go out on a limb and say another person is wrong for wanting to feel the way they do.

I'm just saying it the way I see it. I sense a bit of arrogance from you. And I'm not asking you to change your opinion but to respect people who want to change instead of insisting they cannot simply because you feel yourself some kind of EXPERT. Which, there are alot on PCF, or else those who claim to be.

[JDHURF]

George W Bush wrote: JDHURF wrote: Individuals who claim homosexuals can choose between “being gay” and being strait willy nilly are so full of misinformation that it is hard to engage in an intellectually honest discussion with them. These sorts of statements always beg the question: did you choose to be straight? Do you have as much an urge to be gay as you do to be straight? If not then there is necessarily a stronger urge for either sexual orientation and clearly one has a natural inclination to choose the stronger urge. Meaning that even lending credence to the scientifically invalid notion that sexual orientation is a “choice” that can be reversed at whim one is clearly more inclined to choose one orientation over the other on a basis that is not within their means to dictate.

Not all homosexuals can change. Not all heterosexuals can change.
but, it they want to - dont you think we should try to help them? Dont you believe the stories of people who have chosen to change? or are you convinced they are lying to themselves? I’m not all that concerned with this area of the subject, it is far too vague. The point of the matter is that homosexuality is a natural manifestation of human nature and in its true form is not something that can be “reversed.” Regardless of how homosexuality is inculcated within the individual it is fixed very early on in life and is, if not impossible to reverse, very close to it.

What you are doing is taking programs and instances that have a clear agenda – illustrating homosexuality as something that is unnatural and reversible – and extrapolating these minor and fringe groups as legitimate and scientifically valid. NARTH, while not being a religiously motivated group, is motivated by the premise that homosexuality is a psychological disorder and this premise is rejected by the psychiatric community. You are espousing the beliefs of a fringe group that is rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers.

[Enoch]

George W Bush wrote: Lets forget organizations like PFLAG and NARTH for a second.

My "snide"ness was based on the arrogance I felt from your post: "Once the source appears neutral, I will read and critique the information found therein."
As if someone must do something to make something "APPEAR" neutral. You worded it like you were ROYAL or something. Or that you are part of a panel of experts that must review evidence worthy enough to approve of the way a person believes they can change themselves.
If you sensed arrogance, or a "royalty" complex from me, that is your problem. I get accused of arrogance quite frequently because I am blunt, honest, and sometimes harsh. I don't pick my words carefully. I just say what I feel, without feeling the need to polish it so that I come across as a nice guy. I am not an arrogant person, just blunt. I'm sorry if that comes across as arrogance.

George W Bush wrote: Regardless, You are not willing to accept someones opinion that your sexuality CANNOT be changed. Which is fine.

You are also not willing to accept someones citation that THEIR sexuality CAN be changed.

Why is that?
Also, you are misunderstanding me here. I am willing to accept their opinion that sexuality can be changed, but I don't agree with it. Accepting another's opinion and agreeing with it are two seperate issues that you appear to be confusing.

George W Bush wrote: Since you refuse to read anything that "does not pass your test of neutrility", then how the hell can you have any opinion about another persons personal perspective? I'm not the one saying you are wrong for feeling the way you do. But you will go out on a limb and say another person is wrong for wanting to feel the way they do.
Where did I say that somone was wrong for WANTING to change their orientation? I wanted to for years. But, I also knew that it can't be done. What I did say, on the other hand, was that I don't believe those who claim to change were every truly homosexual. In my opinion, they were likely bisexual.

And would you like to know why I don't bother wasting my time with biased sources? It is simple. Biased sources can not be trusted to present the most accurate information, or to present information that is contradictory to their pre-concieved stance. Do you really think I want to waste my time on information that, due to the nature of the organization presenting it, I can't trust to be neutral or accurate? If you feel that biased information and one-sided arguments are a good source of information, be my guest. Just don't expect everyone to accept it.

George W Bush wrote: I'm just saying it the way I see it. I sense a bit of arrogance from you. And I'm not asking you to change your opinion but to respect people who want to change instead of insisting they cannot simply because you feel yourself some kind of EXPERT. Which, there are alot on PCF, or else those who claim to be. And I'm just saying it the way I see it. I have never stated that I was an expert. I said that I likely have more experience with homosexuality than a heterosexual, but that hardly constitutes expertise. If you consider that arrogance, so be it.

[Lumina]

George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not attacking the content of the information, but rather the credibility of the source.

then you agree that people can change if they want to.
thats all I need.

That's not what he said at all.

[Enoch]

Lumina wrote: George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not attacking the content of the information, but rather the credibility of the source.

then you agree that people can change if they want to.
thats all I need.

That's not what he said at all. Thank you Lumina

[George W Bush]

JDHURF wrote: George W Bush wrote: JDHURF wrote: Individuals who claim homosexuals can choose between “being gay” and being strait willy nilly are so full of misinformation that it is hard to engage in an intellectually honest discussion with them. These sorts of statements always beg the question: did you choose to be straight? Do you have as much an urge to be gay as you do to be straight? If not then there is necessarily a stronger urge for either sexual orientation and clearly one has a natural inclination to choose the stronger urge. Meaning that even lending credence to the scientifically invalid notion that sexual orientation is a “choice” that can be reversed at whim one is clearly more inclined to choose one orientation over the other on a basis that is not within their means to dictate.

Not all homosexuals can change. Not all heterosexuals can change.
but, it they want to - dont you think we should try to help them? Dont you believe the stories of people who have chosen to change? or are you convinced they are lying to themselves? I’m not all that concerned with this area of the subject, it is far too vague. The point of the matter is that homosexuality is a natural manifestation of human nature and in its true form is not something that can be “reversed.” Regardless of how homosexuality is inculcated within the individual it is fixed very early on in life and is, if not impossible to reverse, very close to it.

What you are doing is taking programs and instances that have a clear agenda – illustrating homosexuality as something that is unnatural and reversible – and extrapolating these minor and fringe groups as legitimate and scientifically valid. NARTH, while not being a religiously motivated group, is motivated by the premise that homosexuality is a psychological disorder and this premise is rejected by the psychiatric community. You are espousing the beliefs of a fringe group that is rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers.

Like I said earlier, I dont have to adhere 100% to an organizations philosophy to have my opinion that some homos can change.
In other words, despite NARTH's insistence that homosexuality is a disorder, I do not believe it is if the person does not have an issue with it.
In fact, you will find that there is a reference in the APA that indicates maladaption with some homosexual people. Although this does not indicate homosexuality is a disorder, it shows that people will deal with it in ways that compromise their mental health.
I'm certain this is the base for much of society's woes on both sides of the issue. How many homosexual men kill themselves? Become drugged out? Live promiscuous lifestyle?
This maladaption is precisely the reason some people want to 'change' and, instead of being discouraged, should be explored cautiously with NO cheerleaders on either side of the issue (that is, no one saying, "sorry. it cant be done. you'll just have to deal")

There is my basis for support in a nutshell. NARTH is not representative of my overall philosophy. I have read, however, they fully support the right of the individual to be happy and they would discourage the bully tactics from either side.

Go read some of their stuff. Its worth it. You may learn something.

[JDHURF]

George W Bush wrote: Like I said earlier, I dont have to adhere 100% to an organizations philosophy to have my opinion that some homos can change.
I didn’t claim that you had to “adhere 100%” to a specific organizations views to share their view that homosexuality is reversible, I claimed that the view that homosexuality is reversible is at best fraught with severe difficulty.
George W Bush wrote: In fact, you will find that there is a reference in the APA that indicates maladaption with some homosexual people.
Maladaption also applies to heterosexuals and there is sufficient reason to believe that homosexual maladaption is more prevalent because of the hostile society in which homosexuals live in, a hostile society which you – to a degree – help construct.
George W Bush wrote: Although this does not indicate homosexuality is a disorder, it shows that people will deal with it in ways that compromise their mental health.
People also deal with being black in a society which deems them lesser than others based on their levels of melatonin in ways that compromise their mental health. This is not suggestive of the inherent problems of being black but of the inherent problems of being black in an unequal and unsound society.
George W Bush wrote: I'm certain this is the base for much of society's woes on both sides of the issue. How many homosexual men kill themselves? Become drugged out? Live promiscuous lifestyle?
There is much evidence that suggests that homosexuals commit suicide, do drugs, etc. because of the hostile society in which they live. It is a distinct trend – one should realize - that the more society has come to be accepting of homosexuality the less homosexuals exhibit such self-mutilating behavior. There is a correlation between the level of intolerance and bigotry towards homosexuality and the level of homosexual self-mutilation.
George W Bush wrote: This maladaption is precisely the reason some people want to 'change' and, instead of being discouraged, should be explored cautiously with NO cheerleaders on either side of the issue (that is, no one saying, "sorry. it cant be done. you'll just have to deal")
The reason some homosexuals wish to change is because of the hostile society in which they reside, this should be obvious. If society at large viewed my heterosexuality as unfavorable, “sinful,” disordered, unnatural and as a mental disorder then that might just act as an encouraging factor for my wish to “change” my heterosexuality and this desire would be even more profound if I were a medical and psychiatric layman that was under the impression that my heterosexuality could be changed.

There’s a reason why this view that homosexuality is reversible is rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers. There is also a reason why NARTH – possibly the only nonreligious group advocating homosexuality’s reversibility – also believes that it is a mental disorder.

[George W Bush]

JDHURF wrote: ..

Sure. you can blame society for the feelings someone has about THEIR sexuality.

But, doesnt that cover up an important trait in people: that of self determination?

Shouldnt people acquire a philosophy of "i am going to what feels right regardless of how others feel about it"?

You should also understand the idea of forming peer support, and how that can lessen discomfort.

If that does not help, how can society be blamed for this individuals feelings? Suicide can only be blamed on the individual. So, I reject the claim that it is "societys fault" that homosexuals maladapt.

There is alot more to be said about someone incapable of accepting themselves. In that case, change if you want. Otherwise, seek the available means to accept who you are: peer groups, counseling, etc.

You cannot fault society for not accepting yourself.

[F'losrix]

George W Bush wrote: Sure. you can blame society for the feelings someone has about THEIR sexuality.

But, doesnt that cover up an important trait in people: that of self determination?
You're completely missing the point. I know this may sound strange to you, but a person can be completely accepting of their personal difference in orientation and at the same time become suicidal, thanks to their inability to reconcile that acceptance of self with the incredible pressure from society to conform or face being isolated. It can leave a person feeling trapped, unwanted and completely depressed. It can feel like you've been imprisoned in a society full of people who hate you without even knowing anything about the real you.

A person in that situation has three choices:

1) Escape via death.

2) Suppress their orientation and try to be content with conforming to society's demand that they live a 'heterosexual lifestyle', or at least pretend not to be gay even if they're celibate.

3) Find coping mechanisms. Many gay people find positive ways to cope, but there's no shortage of those who opt for self-destructive behaviors instead.

George W Bush wrote: Shouldnt people acquire a philosophy of "i am going to what feels right regardless of how others feel about it"?
Not entirely. Suppose I decided that being a serial killer feels rights to me, regardless of how others feel about it? In fact, that's the very sort of argument I see applied to homosexuality on a daily basis - that we've adopted a philosophy of 'if it feels good, do it' and that we're no better than murderers who are doing what feels good to them.

If you were beling realistic, you'd have to admit that people are constantly trying to find a way to balance what feels good to them versus what society tells them is 'good' and acceptable behavior. When the two things are in sync, no problem. When they aren't, and when not being in sync appears to be more or less a permanent situation, that can create incredible feelings of isolation, of being misunderstood, and even of being unworthy of society's tolerance for having accepted something viewed as evil about one's self. Or of viewing society as being evil, which can also lead an individual to adopt some extremely anti-social behaviors.

George W Bush wrote: You should also understand the idea of forming peer support, and how that can lessen discomfort.
Which is why gay/straight student alliances are increasingly viewed as one possible aid against gay teen suicide. Gay teens need peer support - not just from other gay kids, but from their straight peers as well.

But instead, we have to put up with people like James Dobson of Focus on the Family twisting someone's research into an argument that gay proselytizing (which is a myth anyway) is to blame for teens confused about their sexuailty having a high rate of suicide. Nice. Apparently the only people who are supposed to benefit from peer support are heterosexuals and so-called 'ex-gays'.

George W Bush wrote: If that does not help, how can society be blamed for this individuals feelings? Suicide can only be blamed on the individual. So, I reject the claim that it is "societys fault" that homosexuals maladapt.
Are people ultimately responsible for their individual actions? Yes. Are they completely responsible for the feelings that drive them to those actions? Debatable.

As someone who lost a dear friend to suicide 6-1/2 years ago because he felt rejected by family, feared the rejection of peers, and ultimately felt rejected by society due to the way he perceived his place in it as a gay man, I can tell you it's a heck of a lot more complex than just flippantly saying it's all the individual's own fault for feeling the way they do.

Some gay folk maladapt because they don't have a strong enough sense of self identity & self esteem to deflect or ignore the endless criticism. Some come to the conclusion that there's no way for them to be happy with their life; if they dare to be happy with being gay, society's treatment of them for it still makes them unhappy. At the same time, they don't see adopting heterosexual behavior or celibacy as viable options for insuring their personal happiness.

It's pretty brutal and unrealistic to insist to someone who is indundated daily with negative feedback about their own identity as a person with a difference of orientation that they should just shrug it off and be happy anyway. It also doesn't show much understanding of basic psychology, IMHO.

George W Bush wrote: There is alot more to be said about someone incapable of accepting themselves. In that case, change if you want. Otherwise, seek the available means to accept who you are: peer groups, counseling, etc.
And if you don't have access to a supportive peer group or an understanding counselor, what then? You're ignoring the fact that we don't all live in big cities with a strong gay presence or readily available gay-friendly counseling services. Even when those things are available, seeking them out is just too intimidating for some people - we aren't all extroverts, you know.

Examples: My own partner was celibate & closeted until he hit age 40 - because he lacked the basic confidence in his social skills that would have aided him in getting out and meeting people - something that can be traced back to the fact that he had a lot of fear of being 'found out' by his non-gay peers from early on, assuming that people would just reject his friendship, his value as an employee, etc. if they figured out he was gay. Some of us come to value friendship - even with not-so-gay friendly people - more than the thought of winding up utterly alone.

I, myself have spent a lot of time in gay-friendly settings without having the courage to ever talk to anyone 'new'. If people approached me first, I was fine. But it took being really miserable with being so completely isolated to get me off my duff and out there in the first place. Some people hit that point and the pressures are just too much for them - they go into a downward spiral of depression and give up on life.

You have to remember - we can't always tell who else is gay, and with there being a lot fewer of us, we don't have near the opportunity to develop the kind of social supports that heterosexuals tend to take for granted.

George W Bush wrote: You cannot fault society for not accepting yourself.
I can fault societal pressures for making me feel like there's something wrong with me that's unworthy of acceptance, though. It's very easy to say it's our own fault for internalizing the constant barrage of negative messages society sends our way. It's also pretty uncaring and unsympathetic.

I've learned to discount a lot of the nonsense society throws at me, but to insist that I should just form some kind of natural immunity to all of it is pretty heartless and ignorant.

[George W Bush]

Skeptical Mystic,

You brought up some good points.

I understand society's disease of not accepting homosexuals, and all their other range of prejudices.

I tend to believe another person's opinion matters not to the point of not accepting myself. At one time, not too long ago, everyones opinion mattered to me. It became quite an expensive way of life - seeking to impress everyone.

When someone gets to their darkest moments and they grab a gun, they have decided for themselves - it would be ignorant to assume anything about "the causes" of the suicide. Wouldnt it? How many parents/friends beat themselves up over not seeing the signs and doing the right things?

Eventually, you gotta stop the blame game. Many grief counselors, as you may know being that you had a friend in suicide, will tell you "not your fault". When they are gone, and you still must live. How can you fault yourself? or blame others. This doesnt mean "no compassion" for suicides. One website I frequented, at one time: www.1000deaths.org - had pictures of people that killed themselves (men, women, girls, boys, all ages). You look at these pictures and sometimes you feel like you're conversing with them. Look into their eyes, realise they killed themselves. But, I digress. I wanted to make it clear theres compassion for suicides. I'm not as cold hearless bastard as you believe.

It would be great if people could find ways OUT of whatever they are dealing with. That is my position. If it heals to go through a program of attempted reparative therapy, so do it! If it heals to simply acknowledge yourself as homosexual. DO IT. Regardless, do what feels right.

If there are people to blame for the schism that goes through homosexuals heads, its the cheerleaders on BOTH sides playing TUG OF WAR with sexuality. However, knowing that there could be OPTIONS can be alot more tolerable than having to deal with "just accept it" from either side.

This brings me to the final point: society wont get any kinder. I accept that in so many facets of my life. The choice is not there to gripe about it, unless I honestly believe society CAN change. Though I still gripe, it helps. But, I mean, for the purpose of this debate, it wont.

[F'losrix]

George W Bush wrote: It would be great if people could find ways OUT of whatever they are dealing with. That is my position. If it heals to go through a program of attempted reparative therapy, so do it! If it heals to simply acknowledge yourself as homosexual. DO IT. Regardless, do what feels right.
And if, as apparently happens to most who pursue reparative therapy, one finds that it doesn't help and in fact makes things even worse, what then?

That is my point. It would be quite a different discussion if we were talking about qualified professionals, esteemed by their professional peers, using proven methodologies to treat people, and having a reasonable rate of success. In short - we are not.

Don't be deceived by the letters after someone's name or their claims of associations with this or that organization or treatment program. Those things can look impressive and turn out to be extremely deceptive.

If someone really believes they can have a happier life pretending to be a heterosexual, I wish them luck, as they're going to need a whopping dose of it. If someone was confused and adopted homosexual behavior without really understanding themselves and their own sexuality, then I certainly have no desire to see them remain in that state of confusion and hope they can find a qualified therapist who can help them rebuild their identity and lead a more or less normal life as the person they were supposed to be. I have serious doubts that they're likely to find that person among groups like NARTH, though.

But if someone knows that they're gay and is just having a hard time dealing with all the crap the world throws at them over it, or if they're really feeling torn between their religion and their sexuality, then I can only advise them that trying to be something you're not just to please your family, friends and church is highly unlikely to be worth it. Keep looking for that peer support group, and if you have the misfortune to encounter people who are shallow and only interested in you for your sexuality, money, or ability to aspire to decadence, keep moving until you find your niche. Don't fall for the snake oil of those peddling religion mixed with questionable therapeutic measures as a 'cure' for something that isn't the root problem. I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing to have faith - just make sure it's really your beliefs that you're following and not some charlatan's.

My mother says, "It's not whether it makes you feel good temporarily that matters. It's whether it brings you a lasting sense of peace." If someone has to try to sell you on what's right, but everything they're saying doesn't seem to really fit or feels manipulative, then refuse to 'complete the purchase' and look for guidance elsewhere.

And that goes for whether they're trying to 'straighten you out' (pun intended) or push you to explore homosexual feelings and behavior.

[George W Bush]

Ultimately, I agree with the point that a person needs to be happy.

As far as the experts, professionals or gurus (if you will) - none of that matters.

No one (let me repeat, NO ONE) knows anyone better than the individual of themselves. You can be Dr. GOD and I would still trust a person's subjective feelings more valid than the Dr. The point I want to make is that no one can say better than yourself wether or not they are gay, bi or indifferent.

You admitted that someone can be confused. For whatever reason, they have these feelings towards the same sex. For that, they should seek therapy as you suggested.
What should the therapist say? Uh, your feelings are normal because the APA has not made it ok for me to say otherwise?