Are people ignoring the facts about Homosexuality?

reply to post by petrus4


What i would say to you is this.

1 It is a group of friends, so find out from them if he is bi or gay.
If he is bi or gay then consider this.

2 How would you react if a girl you were not physically attracted to did all those things he did?

3 How would you politely reject the advance by said girl.

4 Apply this to politely reject the guys advance (if he has in fact been making one)



One thing is clear, whether gay or straight, if someone makes physical contact with you which makes you uncomfortable you have every right to politely or impolitely reject it. Since you will be living with them though polite is probably better. XD

Also, you need to find a mentally tomboyish girl i think.

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by Believer101

 

What are you waffling about speaking for an entire city, i am giving MY viewpoint, but it would be fair to say that most people would not wish to see leather clad s&m freaks strutting around a city, and for you to make a analogy shows your argument up to be the utter dung that it is.

If "most" people didn't want to see it, those folks would not have that parade. It's as simple as that. You said earlier you want them all arrested for wearing those items, and that NO ONE wants to see it. Therefore, you're trying to speak for your ENTIRE city, when it is only YOU who feels that way.

A analogy? Sorry to be nit-picky, but it's an analogy. Please use proper grammar if you would like for me to have a true discussion with you.

reply to post by Believer101


I am giving my opinion, an opinion which I believe is shared by most people, so you can cease with your inanery.

Your point about by virtue of these s&m deviants being able to parade that most don't mind is incredibly stupid, like suggesting that because the westboro baptist church being able to protest most people do not mind them.


One day there will be a law which ensures these freaks are dealt with by the law if they display this deviancy outside the home/clubs, that is my belief.

As for your last pretentious, pathetic little point, I'm on my phone and such small errors cam occur- by all means don't respond to me again, in fact I urge it as you offer nonsensical arguments

reply to post by spocksleftear

Dear spocksleftear,

I'm sorry that what seems to me to be a small misunderstanding is destroying our chance for communication.

I can't know what you're thinking, so let me try to explain my thoughts and you can decide what to do from there.

From the beginning I only wanted to learn. I did not come to the thread with hatred, insults, or religious condemnation. I came into the battlefield waving a white flag of truce, trying to get a better understanding of the issues.

Perhaps I didn't understand you when you said that it was clearly a civil rights issue and you would reject any argument that didn't agree with that position. What else could it possibly mean other than "Discussion in this area is closed. It is a civil rights issue and I will hear nothing (reject anything) opposed to that?"

You've also said that because of my phrasing you would stop holding yourself back and start nailing me down. My phrasing? You've been holding yourself back? From what? Really demolishing me?

Hark! Is that the enemy on our ground?
Prepare the cannons! Erect the walls all 'round!
With shot and ball make every cannon fire.
Keep fighting, men, let no one see you tire.
Do they approach? Then fire all the more.
Fire faster, lads, we'll win this bitter war.
I can't see the foe, this battle we have won
Strip clean their bodies! Master? There are none.
--Charles1952, for spocksleftear.

Again, I'm sorry that misunderstanding is costing us an opportunity. There was no foe. But you've won.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


No I think you understood pretty well. Double so since you just put something I did not say in quotation marks in an attempt to frame it in the way which suited you. I wag my finger at you for this.

I explained quite clearly the way in which I was holding back was in terms of pointing out areas where your positions are lacking and made no mention of war and cannon fire as you do now. In fact in my post I actively encouraged the debate going forward, however you currently state that a small communication misunderstanding is destroying our chance for communication which my post gave 0 indication of, but which you state regardless.
Please justify the assertion that the 'miscommunication' is destroying our chance for communication when i made it clear in my previous post that it did not.

To reiterate the ways in which I have held back on you, I allowed you to limit the scope of the debate to the US only when there was no reason to other than to please you. I allowed you to rebut several times without demanding the explanation of the logic of your positions. For example on prop 8 you said that pro prop 8 people would argue it was not a rights issue, but then you never bothered to explain their position. I also allowed you to maintain the idea that you are only interested in learning and understand, when in reaction to almost all positions you attempt to frame the issues in such a way as to negate or ignore the validity of the pro equality position.

I intend to fire no cannon at you, but I do intend to hold your positions to account, because up to this point i have let you slide with making many counterpoints without forcing you to explain the logic of them. So, kindly address the numerous questions I outlined in my previous post between us, and which you failed to address in your recent post completely.

Attempting to paint me as shutting down discussion was a bad move, it was an opportunity to throw a low blow and you took it. In other circumstances that would have been smart, but in a I am here just to learn and understand discussion it was not. I certainly could have done it to you when you asked the discussion to be limited to the US, but I did not. So as I say, from here on in you don't get an easy ride in this discussion and you can get cracking on that list if you expect me to continue.

Originally posted by blueorder
......................
One day there will be a law which ensures these freaks are dealt with by the law if they display this deviancy outside the home/clubs, that is my belief.
..............

Wow, look everybody.

Someone wants fashion police.

Can we regulate hair and weight as well?

Bad hair day - ticket for you.
Overweight - we will have to send you to a fat camp.

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by Believer101

 

I am giving my opinion, an opinion which I believe is shared by most people, so you can cease with your inanery.

You are giving your opinion, an opinion which you have stated at least 100 times, so you can cease with giving your opinion unless you have something relevant to say.

For the record Charles has chosen to send me a long private message rather than posting directly in the topic. I have given him a 48 hour grace period to post the PM in the topic after which I will do so. I will then dismantle it. Charles will then have several additional questions to answer alongside those he has failed to address and which I have listed repeatedly.

reply to post by vogon42


odd extrapolation, dealing purely with these public displays of sexual fetish/deviancy, you seem to have lost the plot

reply to post by blueorder


Topic of the thread - "Are people ignoring the facts about Homosexuality?"

Your topic - People, gay or not, should not wear S&M gear in public.

Do you see how these two are not equivalent?

I'm going to give you the opportunity to post your private message in the topic. You have 48 hours grace to do so after which I will post it for you, redacting your age and name confirmation. Know though that either way I will be dismantling the assertions of your message in the topic. Honestly Charles, that you believe me angry and defensive shows that you have understood nothing from the beginning. And when you or I post the PM, I will give you a fundamental understand of it. And you will still be obligated to answer my previous questions.






Dear spocksleftear,

You made an interesting point about online personnas. I guess I had never thought much about mine. That's why I'm writing in this fashion, so there are no online pressures. However, I am willing to post any or all of this U2U into the thread. The only thing I ask is that the parts you want to be posted are entire paragraphs.

As you can tell from my name I am 60 years old this year (and yes, my name is Charles). I've done a few things, including discussions, debates, heated debates, arguments, and fights. I've hurt and been hurt with words. Years ago I discovered that, for me, the suffering and anger that those arguments caused were nowhere near worth whatever could be gained in an argument.

I am not trying to change your mind. I know for a certainty that I can't do that, even if I wanted to (which I don't, particularly). Also, we're far enough into this thread that I don't think too many people are still following it, even if I wanted to change their minds. It is infinitely more important to me to find truth and understanding, and to leave people in a better position than when I met them, than to "win" an argument. It seems I have failed here.

I've been in threads with people with different points of view, as we all have. My biggest succcess is when I can find some common ground between two groups and encourage them to build on that. I do it by asking questions. Rarely, to get people to clearly express their thoughts, more often because I REALLY DON'T KNOW. Ooooops, sorry for the shout.

That's what I was hoping for here. I'm not gay and there is much I don't understand. So I tried to ask. I think my first question was something along the lines of "Why do gays get so excited about this, it seems to be the central part of their lives." (I use quotes to indicate dialog, not necessarily to indicate exact wording. I usually make it clear by the context.)

I wanted to hear anything I could build on, but I knew there could be a ton of answers. Maybe "Because physical relationships are a vital part of who we are, more so than heterosexuals." Maybe "Because we wear it as a badge of pride to show we haven't given into oppression." Maybe "Because gays tend to be Democrats and the country tends to be Republican, and we want to fight that for political purposes." (I have no idea if any of these ideas are valid. I'm just throwing them out to demonstrate my lack of certainty over what the answers might be.)

I wanted to find out what was up with all the disease numbers. Why are they so high? Can they be reduced to the population norm or is there a certain level of extra risk that gay sex has to involve. Why are there more gays reported among one sex than another? How can gays and heterosexuals reach a point where they both feel protected by society's laws.

Where I failed was in not being sensitive enough to the feelings gays had on the subject. Of course, I didn't know how strong their feelings were, but it was still my failure. I was unable to persuade a gay rights supporter to walk along with me and explore my questions and probe into our fears surrounding the questions. A tough task, sure, but I mistakenly thought I could do it.

As a result, I've left you, and possibly some observers on the thread angry and defensive. That is my big failure and I humbly ask your forgiveness.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by vogon42
reply to post by blueorder

 

Topic of the thread - "Are people ignoring the facts about Homosexuality?"

Your topic - People, gay or not, should not wear S&M gear in public.

Do you see how these two are not equivalent?

yeah, the reason being I have only witnessed these displays at gay pride marches, but I would apply the same reasoning to heterosexuals doing likewise.

This has been dragged out because some S&M and/or homosexual "extremists" have been equating the reasonable position of opposing public marches of S&M clad freaks with being gay, which is just ridiculous

7

reply to post by charles1952


Paragraph 1 and 2 of your PM have no relevance to the topic.

Paragraph 3
'I am not trying to change your mind. I know for a certainty that I can't do that, even if I wanted to (which I don't, particularly). Also, we're far enough into this thread that I don't think too many people are still following it, even if I wanted to change their minds. It is infinitely more important to me to find truth and understanding, and to leave people in a better position than when I met them, than to "win" an argument. It seems I have failed here.'

First off charles my mind can be changed by any argument on a position more reasonable that the one I currently hold. That is known as intellectual honesty. It's also why I did things like correct the 25x more likely to catch HIV to the actual 50x statistic even though doing so ran counter to the position I was defending.

en.wikipedia.org...

Second, whether or not anyone follows this conversation is of no importance to me so long as the conversation is a matter of public record, debated openly and the positions accessed by those who read it on the merits of and the strength of the arguments.

Third, I challenge your assertion that you you seek truth or understanding. The basis of this challenge is your repeated down-playing of the human rights issues raised in my numerous posts here, your refusal to explain why you did this, your refusal to examine the problem at a global level, your repeated attempts to suggest bizarre alternate reasons why this discussion is not moving forward while avoiding the fact that you will not back up any of your positions as requested and as is only fair of you to do in a debate.

Paragraph 4
'I've been in threads with people with different points of view, as we all have. My biggest succcess is when I can find some common ground between two groups and encourage them to build on that. I do it by asking questions. Rarely, to get people to clearly express their thoughts, more often because I REALLY DON'T KNOW. Ooooops, sorry for the shout.'

It is an admirable position to build bridges and in some situations it works, however in a debate on equality of rights there are few compromises I would be willing to make that do not result in equal rights. The compromises you have sought in this topic, such as with the anti bullying lobby do not produce an equal rights situation, and as such there is no reason to compromise when the cost of that compromise is paid for by gay kids with their lives.

Paragraph 5
'That's what I was hoping for here. I'm not gay and there is much I don't understand. So I tried to ask. I think my first question was something along the lines of "Why do gays get so excited about this, it seems to be the central part of their lives." (I use quotes to indicate dialog, not necessarily to indicate exact wording. I usually make it clear by the context.) '

Asking is one thing, and I answered. Where you stop being passive is where you reply to those answers in such a way as to downplay, negate and avoid the issues raised, suggesting countering positions exist but never elaborating on them so that they can be accessed for solidity of logic and reasoning.

Paragraph 6
'I wanted to hear anything I could build on, but I knew there could be a ton of answers. Maybe "Because physical relationships are a vital part of who we are, more so than heterosexuals." Maybe "Because we wear it as a badge of pride to show we haven't given into oppression." Maybe "Because gays tend to be Democrats and the country tends to be Republican, and we want to fight that for political purposes." (I have no idea if any of these ideas are valid. I'm just throwing them out to demonstrate my lack of certainty over what the answers might be.) '

Charles if you have no idea if those ideas are valid then how and why did you generate them? And yes that is a serious question, for each of those positions.

Paragraph 7
'I wanted to find out what was up with all the disease numbers. Why are they so high? Can they be reduced to the population norm or is there a certain level of extra risk that gay sex has to involve. Why are there more gays reported among one sex than another? How can gays and heterosexuals reach a point where they both feel protected by society's laws.'

This was covered in detail in my previous posts. As for a point where gays and homosexuals can both feel protected by society's laws. Easy, by providing a point where both are treated equally under the law, as demanded by the US constitution in the case of America but which currently does not exist, as demonstrated in my previous posts.

Due to lack of remaining characters I will continue this in my next post.

reply to post by spocksleftear


Paragraph 8 -9
'Where I failed was in not being sensitive enough to the feelings gays had on the subject. Of course, I didn't know how strong their feelings were, but it was still my failure. I was unable to persuade a gay rights supporter to walk along with me and explore my questions and probe into our fears surrounding the questions. A tough task, sure, but I mistakenly thought I could do it.'

'As a result, I've left you, and possibly some observers on the thread angry and defensive. That is my big failure and I humbly ask your forgiveness.'


Feelings and emotions have no place in a debate. Emotions cloud reasoning. I chose the name to begin posting on this board for a very good reason, and I think the quality of my debate reflects this. Whether or not you were sensitive to the feelings of gays is of no importance to me because I care only for your positions and arguments for holding those positions. Where you failed charles was in barely alluding to positions and when some ghostly apparition which may have been a position was presented there was no evidence to argue for the logic or rationality of that position. And you have failed doubly in your continued failure to present them. But where you fail the most charles, where that failure becomes epic is where you have attempted to scuttle this discussion now that you have been pressed for facts, in attempting to frame me as angry and defensive when I have given no indication of either, when I have met you with nothing but cool collected facts, logic, reason and argument backed by evidence. For all my effort, my research, my facts and my logic, you will in the history of your own mind and in your recounting of this to others record it as another lost opportunity where you valiantly fought to seek the truth and where I was overcome by emotion.
If you do this charles then know you do it for your own comfort, and in retelling it as you do you will do me a great injustice, and you will do it without any thought of the respect you offer at the end of your posts. If you have painted me as angry and defensive for your own comfort , and that comfort is important to you then I would ask you honestly to stop reading here, because in reading forward I will deprive you of that comfort. It is not directed at you, rather it is about me, about what I am and am not and why I posted all of this.



I want not just Charles but anyone who reads this to understand this.

I have not become nor have I been angry or defensive in this discussion. I have neither an emotional investment in this argument or reason to be defensive. What I have been is unusually forgiving of a lack of a structured opposing argument and that forgiveness expired because charles tripped a number of mental flags for me that mean I have to go from treating him as having a passive argument/position to having an active argument/position.

What Charles has also failed to understand is that I am not a gay rights supporter. I am an equal rights supporter.

Imagine if we lived in a world dominated by atheism. Imagine a world where a rash of teen suicides of Christian children made necessary an anti bullying law. Imagine that the far left anti religious party, whose presidential candidates drummed up votes by pushing anti religious agendas pushed for an exemption to that law, where by bullying would be allowed so long as it was the expression of a proved scientific fact. This would allow children of vulnerable minorities like the Christians of this world to be singled out for specific abuse which had previously been found to result in suicides.

Who's side do you think I would be on in that debate. If anyone thinks it is the anti religion side you would be dead wrong. I would be 100 percent against that exemption for the same reason I am against the exemption to the current anti bullying law in our reality.

If we lived in that world and laws existed which provided perks to atheists which would be denied to religious people do you think as an atheist I would be for or against these perks. I would be against them because it would be discrimination.

Continued in next post.

Originally posted by blueorder
[......... but I would apply the same reasoning to heterosexuals doing likewise.

.........

Dude.....

Do you understand the TOPIC of this thread??

Please, explain to me your PERCEPTION of this topic......I believe you have a slightly off balance point of view as to what the actual text is here.

It appears you are reading your emotion, rather than the text posted.....calm down, and think for a minute.

reply to post by spocksleftear


If people think that there being a counter argument to awarding homosexuals equal rights gives that case even a gram of validity you would be dead wrong.

There were far right religious counter arguments to giving women the right to vote, that it would upset the natural biblical order. Similar arguments are still successfully used in other religions today.

Collosians 3:18: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 14:35: - for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Corinthians 11:9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.


There were far right religious counter arguments to giving slaves their freedom from hundreds of hundreds of ministers across numerous faiths in America.

www.ralphmag.org...

"our Imitation of him (Abraham) in this Moral Action is as warrantable as that of [adopting] his Faith. God set different Orders and Degrees of Men in the World ... some to be High and Honourable, some to be Low and Despicable," wrote John Saffin. "Servants of sundry sorts and degrees, bound to obey; yea, some to be born Slave, and so to remain during their lives."




There were far right religious counter arguments to allowing inter racial marriages.

www.law.virginia.edu...

The judge agreed in  "Loving v. Virginia"  that racial separation was god's will and that mankind must not reverse it.

To quote the good judge

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."
And that was Loving, the case in which the Virginia's supreme court justified a ban on inter racial marriage.


But of course in many if not all of these instances, the opposite camp also used the same religious books to justify their positions. And if the justification for both arguments comes from the same book and nothing else then why choose one over the other. Why was there no deadlock. It was because in the end, common sense and the secular aspects of peoples moralities decided one more sentence in a holy book would be ignored.

Even now there exists a pro gay marriage argument based on the bible. Behold the majesty, I would encourage everyone to read it.

www.religion-online.org...



Now don't get me wrong. I appreciate what this author has done. He has tried to make a loophole, just as was done when reinterpreting the biblical decree that a woman was not to speak in a church to mean she could not hold office in the church, rather than simply not being allowed to speak. It ignores the condemnation of homosexuality which the bible clearly states, just as christians now ignore the instructional guidelines on how to beat ones slaves in the bible, just as they ignore all the passages which demand the servitude of women to their men in the bible, just as they ignore its calls for genocide.

And were this argument that strips another passage of the bible from being gods law into being wellll they were different times etc to take root and become dominant in the churches that would be a great thing. It would be a great thing for homosexuals. But it would not solve my problem, the problem of inequality.

Because why should homosexuals and heterosexuals get a benefit for being married when asexuals, those who through their biology feel no sexual attraction at all are not entitled to that benefit.

In 30- 50 years we will have non biological-machine consciousnesses walking around with the intellectual capacity of a human or higher. And it will be the same arguments that will seek to deprive them of their rights and equalities. I can almost hear them already....

'If a man can marry an android then what next??? A dog!!!! A tv remote???'
'It's against the natural order! Marriage is a sacred bond between two humans made in his image!'

And you know what the best part is, a whole bunch of the people I will have to debate against will probably be gay, just as a whole bunch of the people who are anti gay rights today are not caucasians or men, even though the exact same thing was done to them in the last 150 years and in the case of women is still being done today in a number of countries.

Same with aliens. If tomorrow aliens land on the white house lawn then it will be the same thing. Jackass one liner comments like 'It was Adam and Eve not Adam and EBE! LOL' to justify the persecution and denial of the rights of a sentient creature that is not the same as we are.


In closing. Nothing is won or lost here, and I am doomed to do this again and again and again.

But it is worth doing.

reply to post by vogon42


I am calm I made a point, which somebody irrationally labelled as anti gay, that wasn't very calm

reply to post by blueorder


OK, let me ask again.....

Do you understand the TOPIC of this thread??

Please, explain to me your PERCEPTION of this topic......I believe you have a slightly off balance point of view as to what the actual text is here.

It's been entirely politicized.


ANYONE who thinks being gay is 'innate' and an essential part of ones being, is one confused motha-ucker - you have not understood the message of the oracle of delphi: know thyself.

Anyone who thinks that certainly, does not and CANNOT know themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be so vain and naive to think sexuality could be an essential part of their being, when the essence of what they are is non-conditioned: this is a basic staple of all esoteric or spiritual traditions; atman, adam kadmon (or yechida), etc - i point this out because philosophical traditions have always agreed on the essential freedom men possess at this foundational point of consciousness.

It's an emotional issue, case closed. Anyone who thinks differently I am simply too tired to deal with. I'll concede that morally - I have no case in stating it is wrong, but PSYCHOLOGICALLY, it is simply patently false to insist that ones homosexuality is as basic to ones being as ones height. It is pure stupidity. It is laughable that people can even be led to believe such trite nonsense by a tendentious media that blatantly pushes this agenda.

Anyone of you could feel homosexual feelings: if you think that isn't true, you're either lying to yourself or to afraid to engage in such a thought experiment.

We attract that which we want to. There are just basic elements that need to be present: tension. For instance, the tension between fantasy and reality.

The reason a straight person doesn't bother inculcating homosexual feelings is because he already has a fully defined and clarified sexual attraction towards women, thus, all his feelings/energy is channeled in this direction. But, if he simply shifted his perspective, that which incites feelings of attraction towards women, could spur feelings towards men, and the assortment of thoughts-feelings which accompany sexual arousal would be shifted to the other sex.

Hierarchically, the emotional, or heart center, is what provides the emotional energy for the libido, or sexual center. If the emotional aspect isn't there, or feels exhausted, there will be no sexual attraction. This is demonstrable in he case where a married couple lose sexual attraction for one another because it has become 'repetitive'; the emotional aspect - the love, or feelings of excitement, has dissipated, and thus so has the libido. To remedy this situation some 'tension' needs to be introduced, which is often something taboo or unusual. The Taboo conflicts with a commonly held belief or feeling, which provides the emotional tension, exciting the dulled heart, stimulates the imagination which ultimately creates libido; the emotional awareness of the heart becomes transmitted to the sexual awareness of the groin region. A basic transfer of energy from one conscious center to another.

Homosexuality is ultimately rooted in early life experiences. I agree that there are probably genetic influences. But genetic merely means 'a predisposition of consciousness' in a certain direction, perhaps not that more authoritative than astrological influences. It is suggestible, yes. It does incline the personality in a certain direction: but it is NOT the final authority in how the individual develops.

The major problem is how the individual responds to these feelings. Everyone who's ever had an emotional issue - a phobia, lets say, knows that seeking to repress the feeling actually DRAWS and ACTIVATES the feelings In the case of a homosexual, the thought "I think I may like men", which early on in youth is merely an emotional, and not so much a sexual attraction, later on inclines the consciousness towards sexual feelings. This natural ambivalence and confusion - of feeling an emotional and sexual preference for members of the same sex - is obviously not interpreted positively; associated with it are feelings of embarrassment, guilt, shame, disgust, forcing the individual to repress the feelings.

None of this needs to be. You cannot WORK ON THE HEART WITH FORCE without igniting a counterattack from the heart: it needs to be worked with gently, subtly, and through suggestion. You cannot identify with emotions - as the ridiculous media tries to make people think - and yet try to correct them. There needs to be a separation made between the mind and the heart in order for the mind to REPROGRAM the heart.

Because homosexuality is emotional, first, and only subsequently sexual, you have to address the anterior issue if you seek to correct it's consequent manifestation.

I don't mean to offend anyone here, I am merely stating a basic psychological fact. I'm not passing moral judgement, you may believe what you will. I will not, however, tolerate these lies and deception that homosexuality is an unalterable fact and that those individuals who seek to correct their orientation are being 'misled'. ON THE CONTRARY - It is everyone else, being misled by a mendacious media ultimately with the aim of uprooting basic social functions i.e. the family.

Read Platos Republic and you will see why they want to normalize gay marriage. It'll be the first step to the ultimate eradication of the conventional family structure, leading to a society in which children are raised by the state - and not individual family units.

To clarify. I realize the intractable nature of homosexuality. It is incredibly difficult. I do not mean to belittle the strength of your feelings, or the very deep rooted feeling, that how you are was 'determined' by nature, and to seek to change it will only lead to you 'living a lie'.

The idea of living a lie is based on a philosophical foundation, that nature has dictated falsely: that she made a boy to live with a boy, and that this relationship is sanctioned, not for 'reproduction', but for meeting some emotional need of the individual.

If I believed natures will was immutable, as so many people do, I would wholeheartedly agree that to seek to change your feelings would be to rebel against natures decree; However, I feel it all accords with our intellectual evaluation of natures relationship with man. If shes seen as no more than an arena in which we act, she's accorded very little power; if man knows that he is more than his sexual feelings - which he is - and proceeds to rectify any errant feelings in a direction more fruitful - for both nature (to be reproductive) and himself (to perpetuate his seed) - and he does so without any nagging doubts that he is living a lie - doubts fed by an intellectual climate that treats nature with godlike authority - than I believe a shift can be made and the person can eventually, through habit of thought and feeling, live a very happy and normal sexual life.

However, if you undergo therapy without any intellectual scaffolding to uphold these new feelings, than you are doomed to failure; these are the types CNN constantly profiles to harangue the public with: a kid undergoes therapy to change his sexual orientation only to commit suicide years later: this happens because he never quite understood the nature of consciousness - believing his essential self is conditioned by a sexual orientation.

This helps us explain why a religious environment tends to conduce to a successful transformation of sexual orientation. Believing in Gods 'almighty' power, puts the individual above nature, above the conditioned state: it connects him, albeit, indirectly, to a non-conditioned state of being, which determines his feelings instead of having his feelings determined by the inertia of 'predisposition'.

Everyday scientists are learning more and more about the brains plasticity, even into adulthood. The brain CAN be restructured: the glue, or the agent, however, is that very subtle ingredient which makes or breaks anything: belief.