Quote:The “experts” have spoken. Change in sexual orientation is not possible. Homosexuality, we’re told, is an inborn and unchangeable trait, like eye color. Case closed.

This implies that adolescents with same-sex attraction (SSA) or homoerotic dreams are manifesting symptoms of an underlying reality: They are homosexual. Because sexual orientation is fixed at birth (so the theory goes), these desires will endure through their teenage years and into adulthood.

This view is at odds with scientific research, though. Several studies report the opposite – that SSA among adolescents is more likely to change than remain fixed.

One study* followed approximately 10,800 adolescents between the ages of 16 and 22 years old. Of the 16 year-old males who had exclusively SSA, 61% had opposite-sex attraction at age 17. For same-sex attracted females, 81% changed to opposite attraction in just one year.

The study also compared sexual attraction at ages 17 and 22, with similar results. For example, 75% of adolescent males with SSA at age 17 had opposite-sex attraction at age 22.

Dr. Neil Whitehead, a research scientist who worked for the New Zealand government for 24 years and the United Nations for another four years, analyzed this study. He notes that although a small percentage of heterosexual adolescents developed homosexuality, the vast majority transitioned in the opposite direction. Based on the data, 16 year-olds with SSA are “25 times more likely to change towards heterosexuality at the age of 17 than those with a heterosexual orientation are likely to change towards bi-sexuality or homosexuality.” That means that heterosexuality is 25 times more stable than homosexuality. It also seems to suggest that heterosexuality is more of a “default” orientation.

That’s not all. Approximately 3% of the current heterosexual population once claimed to have either SSA or bisexual attractions. That means there are more people who have changed to exclusively heterosexual attraction than there are currently homosexuals and bisexuals combined. As Dr. Whitehead put it, “Ex-gays outnumber actual gays.”

This is a stunning report. Not only does it contradict the widely held belief that homosexuality is unchangeable, but it demonstrates that change is prevalent in adolescence. Moreover, these young men and women experienced change without any known therapeutic or faith-based intervention. It was through “natural” life experiences.

This research seems too good to be true. Some might suspect this study was conducted by Christian investigators or comes from an obscure source. But the data is from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a project by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and mandated by the United States Congress. Its goal is to investigate adolescent health and is the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal survey of its kind.

http://www.str.org/articles/once-gay-alw...kromz9p530

Facts like these are why the gay lobby want a strong presence in schools and try to outlaw treatments.

If their numbers dwindle back down to 1%, and people recognize that much (not all) of this is a choice, they won't get all the extras that they want.

The sweeties are a real bee in your bonnet, aren't they?

Like I've said before, I don't believe that Homosexuality is given at birth, but I do think that it's a preference developed at a young age in various forms and for a variety of reasons. That being said, if someone didn't want to prefer the same sex, they could mask it--I don't know about completely dropping it. There are plenty of people who've gone from "straight" to gay, so logically "gay" to straight is also possible.

"Don we now our gay apparel"

(10-01-2013 11:00 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  "Don we now our gay apparel"

No, I will NOT wear a Toledo Rockets t-shirt.

(10-01-2013 11:00 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  "Don we now our gay apparel"

"Why do birds sing so gay?
And lovers await the break of day
Why do they fall in love?"

(10-01-2013 11:00 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  "Don we now our gay apparel"

(10-01-2013 11:08 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-01-2013 11:00 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  "Don we now our gay apparel"

"Show me a cowboy who rides side saddle and I will show you a gay ranchero!"

Isn't the goal of the "gay rights movement" to establish equality with the other sexual orientations? If so, then the passage of DADT effectively concluded the fight - and I think we need to move on with life.

The only problem at this point is trying to deal with the anti-gay bullying taking place in schools. That's it - everything else is pretty much equal at this point.

Gay marriage? Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution - and therefore the rules should be dictated by religious authorities and not civil authorities.

There is a reason civil unions exist in this country - and it's for things like this. If civil unions do not provide the protections that a marriage do, then the laws dictating what is civil union is/does should be reviewed.

I once was gay
And loved the day
Then came Obama's way
And now I pay
To have less freedom.

all i know is homosexuality exists. i don't need to read articles to tell me otherwise. i believe we've all accepted that homosexuality exists in fact. the sooner you folks just let them live like you would a straight couple there wouldn't be a need for people to post sh!t like this on message boards because it never really was a big deal to begin with. we'll never escape bigotry because stupid people breed. when will people like the op not care about homosexuals? you disagree with their lifestyle, that's fine. just go about your business. if gay people marrying and f*cking and not having kids is the worst thing that happened to you today, you had a pretty damn good day.

ive said this 100+ times

it does not matter if you are born with it or not. you should love your child for who they are and not subject them to a type of treatment widely considered dangerous by the vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists.

(10-01-2013 01:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  ive said this 100+ times

it does not matter if you are born with it or not. you should love your child for who they are and not subject them to a type of treatment widely considered dangerous by the vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists.

Would you love your child if he/she came home an avid Rush, Fox News fan and die hard Republican? Didn't think so.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(10-01-2013 01:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  ive said this 100+ times

it does not matter if you are born with it or not. you should love your child for who they are and not subject them to a type of treatment widely considered dangerous by the vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists.

Psycologists are teaching our kids to grow up to be *******. Is there anything that can happen to a kid that doesn't cause life long psychological trauma? By today's standards the Catholic school I went to as a kid would be shut down.

(10-01-2013 12:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Isn't the goal of the "gay rights movement" to establish equality with the other sexual orientations? If so, then the passage of DADT effectively concluded the fight - and I think we need to move on with life.

The only problem at this point is trying to deal with the anti-gay bullying taking place in schools. That's it - everything else is pretty much equal at this point.

Gay marriage? Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution - and therefore the rules should be dictated by religious authorities and not civil authorities.

There is a reason civil unions exist in this country - and it's for things like this. If civil unions do not provide the protections that a marriage do, then the laws dictating what is civil union is/does should be reviewed.

The problem with that position is that marriage isn't solely a religious institution in this country. Government entities have explicitly made marriage into a legal institution. At the same time, heterosexuals can get married without any religious attachment at all. Now, I'd be perfectly fine with such government entities to only recognize civil unions for everyone and not be in the marriage business at all, but that proposal doesn't gain any traction with the group that simply doesn't like gay people because they're different.

(10-01-2013 02:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-01-2013 12:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Isn't the goal of the "gay rights movement" to establish equality with the other sexual orientations? If so, then the passage of DADT effectively concluded the fight - and I think we need to move on with life.

The only problem at this point is trying to deal with the anti-gay bullying taking place in schools. That's it - everything else is pretty much equal at this point.

Gay marriage? Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution - and therefore the rules should be dictated by religious authorities and not civil authorities.

There is a reason civil unions exist in this country - and it's for things like this. If civil unions do not provide the protections that a marriage do, then the laws dictating what is civil union is/does should be reviewed.

The problem with that position is that marriage isn't solely a religious institution in this country. Government entities have explicitly made marriage into a legal institution. At the same time, heterosexuals can get married without any religious attachment at all. Now, I'd be perfectly fine with such government entities to only recognize civil unions for everyone and not be in the marriage business at all, but that proposal doesn't gain any traction with the group that simply doesn't like gay people because they're different.

I don't mind gays. They want benefits after they get married. The law of the civil union should change to benefit their desire. Not marriage, something that's been only between a man and a woman for hundreds and thousands of years.

(10-01-2013 02:53 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I don't mind gays. They want benefits after they get married. The law of the civil union should change to benefit their desire.

That's exactly why they shouldn't be changed. They want benefits that they haven't earned.

This is where few people are being honest about the root of the issue.

(10-01-2013 10:58 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Like I've said before, I don't believe that Homosexuality is given at birth, but I do think that it's a preference developed at a young age in various forms and for a variety of reasons. That being said, if someone didn't want to prefer the same sex, they could mask it--I don't know about completely dropping it. There are plenty of people who've gone from "straight" to gay, so logically "gay" to straight is also possible.

In theory, it's all possible. Either side that uses absolutist terms is going to end up being wrong because any of us can probably personally point to counterexamples.

Take away the sexual orientation part of it. Most of us have a certain type of person that we're most attracted to physically. Now, that type of attraction may adjust over the course of our lives - we generally aren't attracted to the same type of people in high school and college as in our 30s and 40s (at least I hope not). There also might be people that wouldn't fit who we're attracted to on paper yet we still find to be attractive, anyway.

We might not be born with those attractions and they could even change over the course of our lives, but the important thing is that none of it consciously under our control. No one can make me attracted to a girl with dyed purple hair and a nose ring (both of those things are unattractive to me on paper) today by sending me to a psychologist or having a Sunday school teacher tell me that I'm wrong, but I could certainly suddenly find that same type of girl attractive 20 years from now without me even knowing why.

I'd imagine that sexual orientation is a more entrenched version of that attraction that I described above. So, I don't doubt at all that a gay person could end up hetero over a period of time or vice versa. However, I vehemently disagree with anyone that suggests that this could somehow be proactively changed by outside forces. The fact that who you're attracted to might change over time doesn't mean that you can *control* who you're attracted to at any given moment. It might be a misnomer to say someone is "born" this or that way, but I definitely think people are wrong in suggesting that you can proactively change it.