New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
 

Interesting take from the LA Times, about how some of the religious folk are starting to believe that being gay is biological or genetic, not a choice and no matter how hard they try cannot "cure" gays folk.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center

Alan Chambers directs Exodus International, widely described as the nation's largest ex-gay ministry. But when he addresses the group's Freedom Conference at Concordia University in Irvine this month, Chambers won't celebrate successful "ex-gays."

Truth is, he's not sure he's ever met one.

With years of therapy, Chambers says, he has mostly conquered his own attraction to men; he's a husband and a father, and he identifies as straight. But lately, he's come to resent the term "ex-gay": It's too neat, implying a clean break with the past, when he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation. "By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete," Chambers said.

His personal denunciation of the term "ex-gay" — his organization has yet to follow suit — is just one example of shifting ground in the polarizing debate on homosexuality.

Despite the fundamental gulf that divides them, gay-rights activists and those who see homosexuality as a sinful disorder are starting to reach agreement on some practical points.

Chambers and other Exodus leaders talk deliberately about a possible biological basis for homosexuality, in part to explain that no one can turn a switch and flip from gay to straight, no matter how hard they pray.

A leading conservative theologian outside the ex-gay movement recently echoed the view that homosexuality may not be a choice, but a matter of DNA. To the shock and anger of many of his constituents, the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote that "we should not be surprised" to find a genetic basis for sexual orientation.

That's heretical to many conservative Christians. But it's a view increasingly embraced by the public at large; a Gallup Poll last month found that 42% of adults believe sexual orientation is present at birth. (Three decades ago, when Gallup first asked the question, just 13% held that view.)

Re: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
 

GEEEEE, It only took about thirty year's.Before you know it they'll be saying something crazy like the earth orbits the sun. I wonder if anyone told them Rev. Hagert was "cured" of his gayness in just three weeks?
But seriously I found it hard at first to believe in 2007 that almost sixty percent of the population thought that being gay was a learned behavior. Then I remembered who I was dealing with.

Re: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
 

flex, I've been saying it for years. There is a certifiable 30-40% retard factor in this country. I've always thought that to be a real low ball figure too. What's even more indicative of how challenged some people are in this country, is that some people think that we should set policy according to polls, or that a polls are gospel in determining how an issue should be viewed. :eek:

Re: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
 

I think it may also have something to do with the FACT that kids aren't learning much in high school. Genetics are part of second year biology. Some teachers spend a whole semester on it. Kids aren't paying attention. Never have. Genetics need to be taught sooner - at least the part about how DNA & RNA decide who you are at birth. In the Nature vs. Nurture arguement, Nurture is getting its arse kicked more and more.

On the subject of sexual attraction, I'd be willing to bet that people's sexual preference is not the only part of attraction that's detrmined genetically. I think we'll find that within the gender-preference groups, there are sub-groups like thin men who like fat women, guys that like girls with narrow hips, short girls that like tall girls, etc. To say that microbiologists are just beginning to scratch the surface is an understatement.

Re: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
 

Well I still think "being gay" should be actively discouraged. As I've said before, I do agree that a certain percentage of men are attracted to men. However I think only a subgroup of them are "only gay" whereas the rest are bixexual and could live happily either way.

Being stubborn about such things, I am convinced it is better for society for bisexuals to choose to be straight over gay. Which is why I think being straight should be encouraged.

If X% is only straight. And Y% is only gay. Then 100%-X%-Y% can go either way and whatever that percentage is, I think we should encourage them to join the X%.

I'd actually be interested in what percentage of adult males (or females I guess) are solely gay vs. bisexual.

Re: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
 

I personally doubt its purely genetic. IMO, genes establish a range of behaviors that early childhood, perhaps even late childhood/early adulthood pin down. One thing's for certain though, it isn't a choice. Bisexuals are distinctly different from gays or straights.

Re: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
 

in case you missed it, that was our very own RW essentially outing Fog as a retard..... in the best stewie griffin voice imaginable: "Wasn't that EPIC!?"

:cool:

Re: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
 

How so? Not being contentious, just wondering if there's data to show that?

Re: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
 

Yes, and similar majorities still dont believe in evolution. Coincidence, or religious indoctrination?

Re: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
 

Keep in mind, I used the qualifier/copout: IMO:D

I can't point to any specific data online right now. I know I've come across different ideas in print that speculate. I'll see what I can find later.