Warren Throckmorton

A little off topic...but...

Here's an interesting, albiet old, article from the pro-homosexual magazine "The Advocate," discussing the fluidity of sexuality. It also discusses the advantages/limitations of the "born gay", biological civil rights argument.

It's interesting that this article from the Advocate (a pro homosexuality magazine) would discuss this issue in a fair and somewhat balanced manner. It even goes so far to argue that the "born gay" argument might actually be unnecessary, yet some homosexuals cling to it with a decidely cult like following (some gays feel horribly threatened when you admit that there was an element of choice in your orientation, as a lot of lesbians will admit)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_n736/ai_20139045

Warren what are your thoughts?
 

I agree that the link between genetic arguments and civil rights is not directly relevant. I am reading a 2005 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior that I intend to summarize here soon that shows shifts in sexual orientation in a large fairly representative sample of non-clinical participants.
 

haha

Watch Grantdale et al. go into battle mode as soon as you do so
 

Skin color is genetic. Racism exists.

Religion is a choice. Religious persecution occurs.

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

Come on anonymous. Don't be a coward -- use a name.

What element of choice is there in sexual orientation You sound very sure, so I guess there's some proof out there. Care to enlighten me?

And The Advocate is a "pro-homosexuality" magazine. Lordy, the things you learn. Whatever next? A pro-black magazine for African-Americans? A pro-Jesus magazine for Christians?

We will await Warren's expose (I suspect which particular vol. he's ref to...); but, sadly, anticipate "interpretive" difficulties. Some people have a fluid sexuality (not, note, sexual orientation) but the vast majority do not. We can discuss collected group statistics and that will mean very little when talking about any particular individual.

Yourself and Warren included.
 

Of course group stats mean little for individuals. I would say that would be true for never changing people as well as those who do. Pretty much what I have been saying all along.
 

No Warren, you have spent several years confusing some people over whether they can change their homosexual orientation. Whatever passing comment here is not matched with the very public efforts you otherwise make (let alone the comapny you keep...)

But, you've also been at pains not to actually say that. We hear about identity and behaviour, and being exgay, and changed lives... none of which addresses sexual orientation.

I really should have asked you before (and perish the thoughts, but you get the idea) -- if someone held a gun to your head could you be prepared to behave homosexually? (Or if you were the type, bribed by huge $?)

If that isn't enough incentive, assume the threat is against your children.

Would you really want to behave this way?

Would that changed behaviour actually change your sexual orientation?

Until you can understand how you would behave under such circumstances I fear you just will not "get it".

But I'm willing to keep trying and assume that you will understand. Call me Don Quixote if you must...
 

Surely, you understand the behavior can change first and then impact preferences. This happens all the time. I suspect there are prisoners that would never have become gay or bisexual without the environment of the prison. I do agree however, that there are people who once released from prison never engage in another homosexual act. Grantdale, I think you are the ones who are making this an all or nothing discussion. I think and have said that some people can and have changed sexual attractions. And I have also stated that some (maybe many)gay people are very unlikely to ever experience attractions to the opposite sex. I am willing to accept your self report; you are not willing to accept the report of others. Further, I am unwilling to collaborate with some ex-gays who say that their experience is normative for all. You seem to advancing the idea that the experience of you and your mates is normative for all.
 

Grantdale you crack me up with your over the top histrionics. I was only rephrasing what the actual article said, and the article does feature quotes from educated homosexuals who say there is an element of choice in their sexual orientation, and who feel that the born gay argument, which seems to define your existence and self esteem, is a dead end.

Reading is good.
Read the article.
 

Warren,

You are trying to have a rational conversation about sexual orientation with a pro-gay homosexual.

You will not get any where.
 

Warren, having a bad day are we?

Fine, this is going to end up long. Usual curse about narrow column blogs applies.

We have already said HERE (let alone XGW or elsewhere) that we KNOW people who have "gone" gay and straight and gay and everywhere in between. Some of these are personal friends. I don't need a journal (or you or Exodus) to tell me that.

you understand the behavior can change first and then impact preferences. This happens all the time.

If you are saying some people realise what they prefer after experiencing something different then, but of course. Music, food, employment... and I'd guess particular sexual acts as well.

But as a general rule about the sexuality of most people that is utterly unsupported. Nearly all show a very stable sexual "preference" beyond their development stages.

Near all people are well aware of their "preferences" well before any sexual behaviour. What on earth are you suggesting about virgins?

That is why I asked you to apply your views about gay and bisexual people to yourself.

I suspect there are prisoners that would never have become gay or bisexual without the environment of the prison. I do agree however, that there are people who once released from prison never engage in another homosexual act.

Right -- so?

I KNOW there are people who come to realise what they prefer sexually in all sorts of places, prisons included.

They experience something they like, and decide to continue. Or they can take it or leave it. You are promoting the idea that this represents an altered sexual orientation, but you in fact have no idea what they may have previously "considered" in their own quiet minds beforehand.

And prison??? Now who's trying to make normative a very abnormal environment.

Were these prisoners forced or corerced into that behaviour? THAT is what happens often. And then they "never engage in another homosexual act" after release, much to my complete lack or surprise.

People do all sorts of odd things in order to survive. In prison. On the street. And, I imagine, also when they become leaders of exgay groups.

Grantdale, I think you are the ones who are making this an all or nothing discussion. I think and have said that some people can and have changed sexual attractions. And I have also stated that some (maybe many)gay people are very unlikely to ever experience attractions to the opposite sex.

No Warren. Not so fast.

I said you confuse people about whether they can change. I also said you word everything carefully. You are playing to a particular audience, as even a brief look over your publishing outlets and your activities would show. As far as we can tell, you have never been forthright about the low probability of change and have never discussed what would result if more gay people felt obliged to try and change.

Where also are your positive comments about gay men or lesbians? When have you ever stated clearly:

"The vast majority of gay men and women are content with their lives , and these lives differ little from those of heterosexuals. But some are not content, and some of these discontented people seek to change their sexuality. The majority fail to do so, and are often hurt by the experience, but I do support their decision to try."

Give that statement at ExGayWatch. Write it in a letter to a gay paper. And then try having it published in your usual outlets.

Care to guess who will find it unacceptable?

Even you use of "some" betrays you. Some? Don't you instead mean that only a small minority have a fluid sexuality? No -- your use of this wording, and it's not the first time, shows that you believe nearly all gay/bi people could be straight.

Give Robert Spitzer a call and ask why he thinks it's only 3%.

I am willing to accept your self report; you are not willing to accept the report of others.

What self report about ourselves have you needed to rely on? None, I suspect.

As for us not accepting -- I guess you mean, apart from the personal friends who seem to confuse you by going gay/straight/gay and still saying their orientation has not changed.

We had dinner with one last week. His kids are a delight to be with. His wife knows his history, and is completely unchallanged by his unchanged sexual orientation. He has truthfully no desire to have sex with another man, but then he has no desire to have sex with anyone other than his wife. Who he finds attractive is an entirely different matter, and unchanged.

But if you mean I must take at face value people who are being paid to convince others that they have changed their orientation -- no. I wasn't born a fool.

As a mirror: why do you always accept ex-gay self reports when so many have been shown up to be manipulative, lying, terrified, disturbed, politically motivated or just plain weird?

Further, I am unwilling to collaborate with some ex-gays who say that their experience is normative for all.

As you have said. However, this rule seems not to be rigorously applied. And let's not forget all those ever-straights that you do collaborate with and who hold the most virulent of anti-gay views.

Need names?

You seem to advancing the idea that the experience of you and your mates is normative for all.

Where has this been said, or even suggested? Please. It is certainly not how we live our lives or deal with others. And you haven't ever bothered to ask if we in fact have ex-gay friends.

We are fairly typical, like that or not, but we are both also different to any other person we know. What's more, we don't care.

But if you wish to discuss who is pushing the idea of somethig be normative... let's also discuss your PERSONAL ideas about sexuality, openly and honestly.

Those are not professionally based, as you well know. And always left unsaid.

Warren, please go out and meet gay people instead of talking about them with anti-gay groups.
 

OK, anonymous be a coward.

Yes, isn't so amazing that we in the Gay Agenda Cult are so threatened that we decide to put such articles in our papers. Hard to fathom isn't it.

The article -- which I read in 1997 by the way -- is about bisexuality. I was once a subscriber. If you don't know the history around when GL changed to GLB and then GLBT then you will not understand the article. Take that from an educated homosexual.

And no, we don't feel horribly threatened by bisexuals. We're not even particularly interested in why we are gay, personally.

However, "we" in the cult do feel horribly threatened when someone uses bisexuals to suggest that we could not be gay, and when they follow that up with anti-gay behaviour to control our lives.

It's those anti-gay activities that attempt to control our existence and self esteem, and very often end up as a real, dead, end.

I hope your gay child is coping as well as can be expected.
 

"The vast majority of gay men and women are content with their lives , and these lives differ little from those of heterosexuals. But some are not content, and some of these discontented people seek to change their sexuality. The majority fail to do so, and are often hurt by the experience, but I do support their decision to try."

If you can show me data that would back this up, I would have no trouble saying it.
 

Why is it that the overwhelming majority of your professional collegues don't need to ask someone to send them this information?

They already know it to be true, and would willingly state it.

I will assume your passive denial means you do not accept the statement.
 

just show him the f@#$ing data. people aren't going to believe something just because everyone else does