Religion and LGBT people

[John V]

Huh. I was willing to let all that go, until you said this. Now you've asked for it: since you're so into evidence, let's take a closer look at the evidence you presented, shall we?

That's what we've been doing all along, as I present most of the evidence. You guys did present one piece that I quickly rebutted.

Your study's sample group was 98 people, or as we in the scientific community like to say, "criminally small." All of those 98 people were members of Exodus International, indicating some psychological desire to change on their part, possibly enough to be invested enough to trick themselves. The length of time each member of the sample group had been involved in the program varied quite a bit (one to three years) meaning that the individual experiences make it quite hard to draw any valid conclusions.

Are you reading my link? The first line of the abstract notes that it spanned 6-7 years.

Of this group, only 11 people reported any change in their attractions,

Can you quote the study on that? What I see is:

At T1, 11 participants reported attraction ratings of 0, 1 or 2 (variations on heterosexual response), but at T6, that number grew to 25. At T1, 43 participants reported attraction ratings of 4, 5, or 6; however, at T6, that number declined to 31. These together indicate some shift in the population away from homosexual experience and toward heterosexual experience. Similarly, at T1, 7 participants reported fantasy ratings of 0, 1 or 2; at T6, that number grew to 21; at T1, 46 participants reported fantasy ratings of 4, 5 or 6; at T6, that number declined to 35.

So, the evidence is hardly stacked against us, John. You simply didn't read your own citation's findings

You seem to be projecting on this point.

Also, you don't mention the longitudinal study of women which I posted, or twins studies, which I didn't actually post as I think the findings are well-known, but can if you like.

---

Interesting..
So people are born with a sexual predisposition based on genetics,

Actually I'd say people are born with a number of sexual predispositions. We've only been discussing gender attraction. I'd say there are also scales of monagamy/promiscuity, and of sex drive. Maybe more.

then environment affects it on a sliding scale continuum?

Then all these combine with culture and personal experience.

How would this theory account for those whose sexual orientation is homosexual or heterosexual from the beginning and doesn't change, though? I think to my gay friend, and he's absolutely repulsed by womens' anatomy, and he's been this way since elementary school.

That people may move along the continuum does not indicate that every individual necessarily moves along the continuum. If your predispositions match your culture and your initial experiences are fulfilling, you probably won't move much. I don't know your friend and can't comment on his specific situation.

[Question Mark]

Actually, you posited evidence, and we showed that it'd been basically debunked. That's what happened. You then refused to see that, and continue to claim victory for some reason.

[John V]

Actually, you posited evidence, and we showed that it'd been basically debunked. That's what happened. You then refused to see that, and continue to claim victory for some reason.

I presented the Bi invisibiltiy report which gave cross-sectional studies showing change from adolescence to adulthood. Nothing was presented to debunk this.

I presented a 10-year longitudinal study on women showing change over time. Nothing was presented to debunk this.

I presented the 6-7 year longitudinal study of people in the Exodus program. Several criticisms of the methodology of this study were offered. None were from peer-reviewed sources.

I mentioned but did not present twins studies. I can present some if you like. I believe luckie included a wiki piece on them in a recent post.

So, out of four pieces of evidence, you did show that one of them is controversial. Your claim that "you posited evidence, and we showed that it'd been basically debunked" is a gross exaggeration. It's not that I "refuse to see it," it's just not an accurate claim.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

I think 27 is the perfect age for this thread to die.

[Violet]

The thing is, whether or not sexual orientation is a choice is completely irrelevant.

You all thought it was relevant before the evidence stacked up against you.

* Violet never thought that whether gay people had a choice in the matter was relevant.

Always thought it was a bit of a cop-out and an intentional distraction when people asked 'Well, is being gay natural?!'... since the question should be 'Why discriminate overmuch because some dude likes cock or some lady likes pussy?'

'Because it's unnatural!'

So is filtered water

'I'm amish, bitch!'

So it came to pass that laws were written against homosexual behavior ('gay sex') because a bunch of hypocrites (or amish people) thought of gay sex and said 'eww!'

Oddly, the men who wrote these things didn't seem to care quite as much when women were having sex with each other... but let's not allow this to devolve into my brand of sexism~

---

Overall I have to agree with Ryan here. The main issue is that people like you, John, seem to believe that it is your right to issue upon other people your view as to their morality based on a life style that is demonstrably innocuous.

'People like John'... so, handsome devils with a hearty love of ice cream?

That was pretty passive aggressive, buddy.

There is absolutely no secular reason for straight people to have more rights than any other orientation, and the religious one basically comes down to "Because god said so".

'Straight' people outnumber 'gay' people, and decency laws exist. If the majority of straight people find gay actions 'indecent', then BAM: law time.

The religious one really comes down to 'Eww' and sociopolitical understanding of gayness delivered to them by their church and their selection of media and news and shizzle God said many things, and yet people still eat shellfish

Your god doesn't even give any reasons for why it is bad, or examples of the harm it causes, it's just bad because he said it is. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: That's law by arbitration, and it's intrinsically unjust.

All laws are arbitrary. What is so special about hurt or badness? Sounds like pleading to me. I'll raise you: every law is arbitrary, and also intrinsically unjust.

---

No, as no one's defined "at will" for me yet. Everyone keeps telling me I'm arguing that though. Actually, I proposed that a bi continuum paradigm reflects reality better than a strict born gay/bi/straight paradigm.

I'd have given this kudos, but I try to not kudos posts where people insult others.

* Violet utterly lies because she's an admitted favoritist

[Question Mark]

'People like John'... so, handsome devils with a hearty love of ice cream?

That was pretty passive aggressive, buddy.

I'll grant you that. I was in a bad mood at the time, but I do apologise for it.
Then again, isn't that message you've just wrote passive aggressive... buddy?

[Violet]

Other inequalities that aren't fashionable can take secret hope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwNuQulK6N0

Heh, people are pretty slow about righting that nonsense. That's why we must take matters into our own hands... and kick ass.

Amputees will have their day!

---

I'll grant you that. I was in a bad mood at the time, but I do apologise for it.
Then again, isn't that message you've just wrote passive aggressive... buddy?

Always, but at least I openly admit my passivity. I'll likely never actually hit you or shoot you or the like... but hell if you can't keep me from quietly insulting, mocking, and generally being a douche to you

As for that specific one... twas leading my point by example... so it had better have been passive-aggressive

---

Are you saying that sexuality one way or the other is a sliding scale and that we're all bi?

The former is accurate, however: some people are extremely resilient to changes in their sexuality... and may infact not be bi.

Such people are probably on the rarer side of things, though.

---

I think to my gay friend, and he's absolutely repulsed by womens' anatomy, and he's been this way since elementary school.

Sounds like quite a different psychological state to that of being attracted to men. Given both the company I keep, and hold more than the slightest desire to 'get to know them better'... I'm quite comfortable saying that I have a subconscious psychological discomfort around men.

... I have a foundation for that. Does he?

[John V]

'People like John'... so, handsome devils with a hearty love of ice cream?

Wow, you must be clairvoyant. Or a stalker.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Other inequalities that aren't fashionable can take secret hope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwNuQulK6N0

I can never listen to Creedance without thinking of this movie scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iApz08Bh53w

[Esquilax]

That's what we've been doing all along, as I present most of the evidence. You guys did present one piece that I quickly rebutted.

Well, let's look at that too: you present one study that doesn't show what you think it does. When this is pointed out to you, you ignore our objections and keep trundling on with your own point, without rebutting any of ours.

You present a second study that has a massive bias and plenty of methodological flaws that has been condemned by a major psychological association as unscientific, and instead of responding to any of those accusations you claim that it's fact because it's peer reviewed, demonstrating a clear ignorance of the fact that peer review is an ongoing process, and that being published does not confer some special credibility on its own.

You allude to a third study about twins, that shows that there's at least a little genetic predisposition involved in sexuality, with your sole objection being that the number isn't enough.

All the while, you ignore the simple logic that we've presented, bouncing from subject to subject instead of ever answering the singular question we've provided you. If you can't get past that one obvious logical issue, it doesn't matter how many (flawed or misrepresented) studies you cite.

Are you reading my link? The first line of the abstract notes that it spanned 6-7 years.

I was unclear in my language, I apologize: the participants had all already been with the Exodus program for one to three years before the study began, so there was quite a lot of variance in their experiences.

Can you quote the study on that? What I see is:
[quote]At T1, 11 participants reported attraction ratings of 0, 1 or 2 (variations on heterosexual response), but at T6, that number grew to 25. At T1, 43 participants reported attraction ratings of 4, 5, or 6; however, at T6, that number declined to 31. These together indicate some shift in the population away from homosexual experience and toward heterosexual experience. Similarly, at T1, 7 participants reported fantasy ratings of 0, 1 or 2; at T6, that number grew to 21; at T1, 46 participants reported fantasy ratings of 4, 5 or 6; at T6, that number declined to 35.

Yeah again, that was on me. I misread things and was going from memory at the point I wrote that. However, I also missed that the sample group slipped down to 72 people as participants dropped out; even if my other methodological concerns weren't valid- and they are- then the sample group is too small to make any real conclusions from. Not to mention the bias. You seem to keep forgetting the immense bias.

Also, you don't mention the longitudinal study of women which I posted, or twins studies, which I didn't actually post as I think the findings are well-known, but can if you like.

Because I already have mentioned the longitudinal study. If you don't like the answers, that's hardly my fault.

However, it's at this point that I need to ask: what's your endgame here? What's the position you're actually arguing for? Because at times it almost seems like you have a progressive stance. And we actually agree on a bunch of things too.

Now, if you're trying to intimate that certain sexual behaviors are at all sinful, that's where we'll have a problem. But if not...