Pray Away the Gay

[tackattack]

---

A bit of personal experience that I hope sheds some light on this subject:

First, I can testify that human sexuality is not this black-and-white, gay-or-straight dichotomy that we seem to think it is in this Islamo-Christian influenced culture of ours. My sexuality, if it needs classification, could be best described as mostly-heterosexual-bisexual. Because human sexuality is shades of bisexual gray, I speculate that when this quack therapy or "praying the gay away" "works" it's either because of repressed sexuality or they got a bisexual of some degree, enough to effectively function in a het relationship.

Also, while Rayaan is correct that the environment, experience or even human will can rewire the brain, my experience is that human sexuality is hardwired beyond such minor changes. First of all, if anything our society goes to great lengths to discourage same-gender affections. I kept my attractions to the same gender so well supressed that even I wasn't consciously aware of them, not for religious reasons (I was raised agnostic) but social reasons alone. For example, I made use of what I now call the lust-into-envy formula to rationalize away any time I spent admiring someone of the same gender.

Secondly, anti-gay quacks have speculated that psychological trauma can trigger homosexual urges but nothing of what they describe is even remotely in my background. I came from a stable family without any divorce or significant problems with my parents' marriage. I had a great relationship with both parents. I suffered no abuse from anyone, either growing up or afterwords. Aside from coming of age in the red-state 80s anti-gay environment, nothing stopped me from developing normally.

I'm really having trouble following what Tack is trying to say here. Tack, can you clarify what you mean by choosing to be gay against one's true nature?

---

I agree that sexuality isn’t as right-or-wrong as this thread encourages, which is why I raised a counter point. I’m glad you see Ryan’s point on environmental, and will’s influence on behavior. To expound, for clarities sake, on what I said we’re talking about 2 things here.
1-Sexuality as a behavior –Whom you choose to have sex with
2-Sexuality as a natural inclination- what you’re attracted to
My stance is that from an outward view when we talk about sexuality we’re talking about the behavior and when we talk about orientation we’re talking about the latter. When I said the statement you were confused on let me restate. The behavioral choice to act counter to your orientation is detrimental.
To continue with an analogy someone else presented. There is a distinct line society has drawn between those attracted to children and those that have sex with children. While both are deplorable to some of us, there is a line there based on behavior. I for instance, am not (physically or perceptually) attracted to men at all and therefore would be naturally inclined as a heterosexual. However, I could get thrown in jail and get really horny and want to have sex with something (or perhaps forced into it, etc.). The only thing available would be males and if I had sex with one then I would technically be behaviorally considered at least bisexual as I’ve had a homosexual encounter. If I filled out a questionnaire asking my sexuality I couldn’t honestly say heterosexual, without denying my behavior. This is counter to my normalized nature and that behavior would be detrimental to my mental well being, IMO. If it asked my sexual orientation, I’d feel fine answering heterosexual, unless because of my behavior my orientation changed (ie. I really liked it and started wanting to do it again).

@Dar- I think it’s fallacious to say behavior isn’t a choice. As you were shown with your example, a lack of creative reasons why it wouldn’t be valid doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I’ve known people that are homosexuals as a result of trauma (also plenty that weren’t), or to fit in with their parents/society’s expectations (he had 2 homosexual male parents). They didn’t feel as if it was natural for them to be homosexual, therefore for them behaving like a homosexual when it’s not really your nature is detrimental.
I think the “life-long celery eater” is wherein the rub lies. It’s far more malleable than a one set value, it’s a continuous choice of reinforcing behaviors. You could eat celery just to see what it’s like without the need to make a life-long change.
@frankiej-
As I stated sexual behavior and sexual orientation are 2 separate things.
@FaithNoMore-
I think I clearly established reasoning why it is a detriment to do behaviors that are counter to your nature in a majority of the instances. If the act of having sex with like sex is part of your natural orientation then it’s not a detriment to you.

---

I reckon, tackaattack, if the bit in the Bible about homosexuality being an abomination to god, wasn't there, you'd come out and say it wasn't wrong at all. It does say that however, and so you're inventing excuses to say it's wrong, that aren't so childish as "Cos the Bible says so", because you'd be laughed at if you did.

---

Actually there is a larger portion of the Christian community (my parents and pastor included) that feels homosexuality is a sin/wrong. Personally I feel it isn’t a sin, unless you’re going against your nature. Homosexuality is of itself a part of natural inclination in tons of other species. If I had not known any homosexuals who weren’t actually attracted sexually to their partners then I probably would completely support the belief that homosexuality is a natural thing and not a choice, therefore not a sin. Regardless of where I stand on the topic, it’s no one’s place to judge/condemn people for their personal lives.