Most homosexuality is a choice

a reply to: AMPTAH

It never ceases to amaze me what comes out of other peoples minds.

That's by far my favorite post of yours.

The irony is too much. I need a cigarette and coffee break.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: AMPTAH

It never ceases to amaze me what comes out of other peoples minds.

That's by far my favorite post of yours.

The irony is too much. I need a cigarette and coffee break.

I would advise against the cigarette and the coffee.

But, what do I know.

a reply to: AMPTAH

But, what do I know.

From what I gather, not a whole lot outside of your particular flavor of religion.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: AMPTAH

But, what do I know.

From what I gather, not a whole lot outside of your particular flavor of religion.

Actually he stopped making sense in terms of Christian biblical teachings pages ago.

Most things being said now are the product of a very interesting and almost amusing imagination.

a reply to: markosity1973

That's what I meant by a particular flavor of religion. He's definitely not representing any denomination of Christianity I know of. I think he believes he's some kind of prophet.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Ok, but you believe that if i just "Believe" i can be a Cisgender Heterosexual then it "Could" Happen?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: AMPTAH

But, what do I know.

From what I gather, not a whole lot outside of your particular flavor of religion.

This should settle the question;

Gays that successfully converted to Straight

"Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale."

Where there is a will, there's a way.

Q.E.D.

a reply to: AMPTAH

**Edit: watch the video.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Answer the question: can you make yourself homosexual, i.e. can you choose to become attracted physically, emotionally, intellectually, romantically to your own sex?

That's the only question to be resolved here, not your half-baked theories on life, the universe and everything.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Skip to 1:00.

Listen to what the man that conducted that study has to say about it:



He doesn't support his survey any more. He doesn't think homosexuality can be changed via these kinds of therapies, and he think's they are harmful. In other words, he agrees with us, not with you.

DNA test for homosexuality

Ethically and morally wrong but shows being gay is not mostly a choice.

a reply to: AMPTAH

DNA and Genesis reconciled. Male = Fire, Female = Water. Fire + Water = End of fire, Steam and Dirty water of ash and soot. Fire + Fire = A bigger, brighter flame. Water + Water = A stream becomes a river.

Man cleaved to woman's breast is Hydrogen cleaved to Oxygen with two bonds losing all properties of the original molecules. Ie end of fire and transformation of water. It is not a definition for the sanctity of marriage between a straight couple. It's quite the opposite and been wrongly interpreted by straights.

a reply to: Skyfloating


So........you're going to generalize about tens or hundreds of millions of people around the world based on your experiences with two people? And call it science?

I've known a few homosexuals in my time, mostly great people, but most had endured incredibly tough times throughout their lives with their sexuality, mostly in regards to how "other" people dealt with it, and it goes without saying the more the religious the environment the tougher the situation. Logic would dictate people would avoid that if they had a choice.

I think more interesting thread would be "Can you call yourself a Christian if you judge other people", for that was clearly one of Jesus's main messages, "Mind your own bloody business, work on yourself, you are in NO position to judge other people".

I find it sad that some people feel the need to even discuss it - as a society we should be far past this point.

If you judge other people it is ego, which is unconsciousness; and since consciousness is the only true spiritual practice if you are judging you have no right to call yourself spiritual - and that is just an observation, not judgement.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: AMPTAH

Answer the question: can you make yourself homosexual, i.e. can you choose to become attracted physically, emotionally, intellectually, romantically to your own sex?

That's the only question to be resolved here, not your half-baked theories on life, the universe and everything.

The answer to that question is kind of obvious - don't you feel like you are talking to flat-earth supporters?

Thinking that being homosexual is a choice is absurd. The only logical explanation is that people who truly believe this are themselves unknowingly bisexual and that since they can choose "right" gender so should everyone else be able to.
I'll let Ricky Gervais demonstrate how absurd this notion is:

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Yes.

Yes. (We have those here at ATS as well. Boggles the mind.)

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
He doesn't support his survey any more.

He can't support his survey anymore because of the "negative feedback" from the gay community.

There are gays who don't want to change.

He was originally the darling of the gay community, when he supported their view that gays can't change, and the idea that their way of life was normal for them.

Then he upset the gay community with his 2001 study, published in 2003.

That caused a lot of negative feedback on him.

He doesn't think homosexuality can be changed via these kinds of therapies,

He didn't, then he did, then he didn't.

and he think's they are harmful.

He is now quoting the "official" gay position. It's politics.

In other words, he agrees with us, not with you.

Politically, he agrees with you, scientifically he agrees with me.

Listen carefully to the "explanation" he gives for "retracting" his study.


There was nothing wrong with his study at all, except now he admits that

"He cannot be certain all those 200 test subjects weren't lying to him."

If his test subjects were being truthful, then his study stands.

If some lied to him. Then his study is doubtful.

How can he prove this either way?

Any survey has the exact same identical problem of verification. Why do any surveys at all?

Right here on ATS there's no way to tell if anybody posting is lying or telling the truth.


You can never tell if people are lying to you about themselves, when the question is all about thought.

A few subjects came back to him years later and told him this therapy was actually harmful to them,
and this also prompted him to change his view, and to think that maybe those who said they had been
converted were just "misleading themselves".

So, now he thinks that the gays who have converted successfully are misleading themselves. That's the gay party line.




But, this is exactly what happens with any addiction. Smokers and alcoholics quit, then remain dry for a while, then some have a "relapse" and start to smoke and drink again. If those that have a "relapse" come back to the therapist and say, "You know, that therapy didn't work for me, I'm back on the smoke and the bottle", then that questions whether the others might not have a relapse later too. There's no way to be sure.

When a test subject converts to heterosexual relationship, and their relation ends years later, their next relationship depends on what is available to them. What if they can't find a heterosexual partner, but homosexual partners are available? There's still a "memory" of the homosexual habits. Just like smoking. Temptation is there to re-convert.

The facts that stand are these:

He had 143 men tell him they had converted, and 57 women told him they had converted.

He examined their statements and concluded that 66% of the men and 44% of the women were "good functioning heterosexuals" with loving heterosexual relationships in the "last year".

But, we all know all relationships have a limited lifetime, regardless of orientation. So, come back many years later, who would have the same partners they had during the study?

So his 2001 study still stands, they had converted, at that time, into happy heterosexuals "by their own statements".

If they all lied, then that is no different from saying all homosexuals are always lying.

If homosexuals are generally truthful, then they had actually converted successfully like they said.

Which is it?

a reply to: AMPTAH

Do you support Heterosexual Conversion therapy.. turning straight people Gay?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

It's adorable when you try to get me mad. It typically means you don't have anything substantial to address the point.

Au contraire, Monsieur K.....

It merely reflects that you are too blinded by your "faith" to even follow (or comprehend) the tenets of your own science, and therefore, have no credibility.

(Plus, I worry about your little boy - and all the little boys, of everyone who is a Bible-thumping reactionist. What happens if he declares he's attracted to men and not girls? What about if he says he thinks the Bible stories are ridiculous and he wants no part of that culture? What if he asks why he can't go to school with other kids, instead of being sequestered in your "perfect" household? What then, daddy?)

(Is that a substantial enough point for you?)

For a self-proclaimed "biologist" to deny that homosexuals, like EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING, have an innate drive based on hormones and instinct to have children is really, well, laughable.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: AMPTAH

Do you support Heterosexual Conversion therapy.. turning straight people Gay?

Would I want my tax dollars being used for such therapy? No.