NY Daily News - Psychiatrist retracts infamous study claiming gay people can turn straight through therapy

[twa]

I don't think you quite understand what the "symptoms" of homosexuality are. Here's a hint: NONE of them are external.

If a alcoholic doesn't drink is he a alcoholic?

Is self loathing internal or external?

Others cannot change you, but you can if your desire to do so is strong

I don't think you understand,and are assuming I want to impose change on anyone.....btw symptoms are largely external, unless ya go in looking

[Kosher Ham]

I have opinions... :bites tongue:

Where is that popcorn emoticon when I need it ?

(and yes, I do know the bites tongue one does not exist)

Interesting read so far folks.

[Jumbo]

<deleted meandering weary-from-still-ongoing-work-related-road-trip post >

[Teller]

<deleted meandering weary-from-still-ongoing-work-related-road-trip post >

Unfiltered Jumbo is my favorite, just sayin.

To the latest point in this thread, regarding "choices"....

I don't believe any of us can choose our sexual preference. You could give me every kind of "therapy" you can think of. I'm still going to be attracted to women. I have no reason to believe that it's different for homosexuals. As LSF said, beginning at age 4....read that again....AGE 4....she knew who she was.

As to whether or not you "choose" to act on it, I'm not sure that's a full-on choice either. Human sexuality is a helluva motivator. And it's one of those things that's very difficult to just ignore. So while you do choose your mate(s), I'm not sure pursuing your sexuality is a "choice" either. Technically it is, but it's like "choosing" to eat or not.

[Larry]

Actually, a thought occurred to me, a while ago, concerning the hypothetical "gay gene":

If there is such a gene, then it would seem logical that the only reason the gene hasn't been removed from the gene pool, is because of gays who, under pressure from society, are gritting their teeth, and making babies, even though they don't want to.

Seems, to me, that if society would stop forcing people to act straight, then "the gay gene" would remove itself from the gene pool, in a relatively short time. (Might take a few generations, if it's recessive.)

Just trying to be helpful.

[No Excuses]

Actually, a thought occurred to me, a while ago, concerning the hypothetical "gay gene":

If there is such a gene, then it would seem logical that the only reason the gene hasn't been removed from the gene pool, is because of gays who, under pressure from society, are gritting their teeth, and making babies, even though they don't want to.

Seems, to me, that if society would stop forcing people to act straight, then "the gay gene" would remove itself from the gene pool, in a relatively short time. (Might take a few generations, if it's recessive.)

Just trying to be helpful.

A person may possess a "gay" gene yet never become gay. Some genes require environmental triggers. Sort of like how you can be highly susceptible to cancer because of your genetic make up, but live out your life cancer free.

Or the gay gene requires other genes in conjunction to truly have its biological effects.

[mjah]

If a alcoholic doesn't drink is he a alcoholic?

Yes. Obviously he is.

But your bigger mistake is conflating a largely behavior-based vice with a largely genetics-based orientation. And you know full well that you're doing it, which makes it sad to behold.

Here's a better way to ask your question: If a guy with two thumbs flatly refuses to use his second thumb, does he still have two thumbs?

Genetics are genetics, and arguing semantics about symptoms is a waste of time as there's no disease or malady involved. You might as well be talking about the "symptoms" of being right-handed, heterosexual, or green-eyed. Ridiculous.

[Renegade7]

Actually, a thought occurred to me, a while ago, concerning the hypothetical "gay gene":

If there is such a gene, then it would seem logical that the only reason the gene hasn't been removed from the gene pool, is because of gays who, under pressure from society, are gritting their teeth, and making babies, even though they don't want to.

Seems, to me, that if society would stop forcing people to act straight, then "the gay gene" would remove itself from the gene pool, in a relatively short time. (Might take a few generations, if it's recessive.)

Just trying to be helpful.

I don't if there's a "gay gene", per say. More like some men are born with higher levels of estrogen then others and some women are born with higher testosterone levels then others. During the 9 months we're in the womb hormone-levels can fluctuate or be off all together. Research on this topic is still on going, and though social factors DO play a factor that is unavoidable, every pregnancy is going to be different. That's just another way that we stay different.

[Hubbs]

Grow up, twa.

[twa]

Yes. Obviously he is.

But your bigger mistake is conflating a largely behavior-based vice with a largely genetics-based orientation. And you know full well that you're doing it, which makes it sad to behold.

Here's a better way to ask your question: If a guy with two thumbs flatly refuses to use his second thumb, does he still have two thumbs?

Genetics are genetics, and arguing semantics about symptoms is a waste of time as there's no disease or malady involved. You might as well be talking about the "symptoms" of being right-handed, heterosexual, or green-eyed. Ridiculous.

ridiculous is asserting gene base w/o proof(though I lean towards Vishals theory)

I also did not bring up alcoholism....but rather pointed out if you never take a drink you are not one

furthermore you assume I consider either a vice

kindly show evidence of two thumbs before asserting it as fact

[PeterMP]

Yes. Obviously he is.

But your bigger mistake is conflating a largely behavior-based vice with a largely genetics-based orientation. And you know full well that you're doing it, which makes it sad to behold.

Here's a better way to ask your question: If a guy with two thumbs flatly refuses to use his second thumb, does he still have two thumbs?

Genetics are genetics, and arguing semantics about symptoms is a waste of time as there's no disease or malady involved. You might as well be talking about the "symptoms" of being right-handed, heterosexual, or green-eyed. Ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but there is much better evidence that alcoholism is genetic based then homosexuality.

For alcohomism, we can identify genetic areas that are different in human alcoholics then non-alcohoics and the look at mice that are defective in those genes and show they have different responses to alcoholism.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110118161351.htm

http://scitechdaily.com/drd2-may-protect-brain-regions-from-alcohol-induced-brain-damage/

The genetics of homosexuality are no where near as settled (there are genes that appear to be different in populations of some humans, and we can make "gay" mice, but there is no link between the genes in mice and the variations in the human population yet).

And a lot of people are starting to think that it will have a heavy epigenetic component.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22005582

That is the result of the changes in your DNA, but not hereditary in the way the general public means, and not necessarily hereditary, and would even be "correctable" into adulthood potentially.

(Note, even for alcoholism we can't genetically explain the alcoholism of everybody leaving the possibililty of epegenetic and even "choice" as an option for some individuals.)

[Larry]

A person may possess a "gay" gene yet never become gay. Some genes require environmental triggers. Sort of like how you can be highly susceptible to cancer because of your genetic make up, but live out your life cancer free.

Or the gay gene requires other genes in conjunction to truly have its biological effects.

If I were betting on "where The Gay comes from", that would be my bet.

That it's likely polygenetic (meaning, it's not a simply binary value, but that it's more like a person's height: It depends on a whole bunch of genes, all 'voting' in different directions.), and that said gene probably only established a predisposition. That the environment, post-birth, has a big factor.

Although, I remember reading about a study that some guy did in, I think, the UK, years ago. (I read about it years ago. The study itself took years, as well.)

This guy took thousands of kids, at age 4, and threw a battery of tests at them. Everything he could think of.

And then, he went to those same kids, annually, for years. (Over the years, the tests changed, to reflect his subject's age.)

He followed these kids till they were like 30.

And then, he separated his kids into the ones that "grew up gay", and the ones that didn't.

And he went back, and looked at the old tests he'd given them, when they were little.

His question was "what's the earliest age, at which the kids who turned out to be gay, performed differently from the ones that didn't?"

And what he found, was that even at age 4, there were test results from his subjects, that correlated better than 98% with whether the subject would grow up gay.

His conclusion was that he can't prove whether gay is genetic, or learned. But that if it's learned, it's learned before age 4.

[PeterMP]

If I were betting on "where The Gay comes from", that would be my bet.

That it's likely polygenetic (meaning, it's not a simply binary value, but that it's more like a person's height: It depends on a whole bunch of genes, all 'voting' in different directions.), and that said gene probably only established a predisposition. That the environment, post-birth, has a big factor.

Although, I remember reading about a study that some guy did in, I think, the UK, years ago. (I read about it years ago. The study itself took years, as well.)

This guy took thousands of kids, at age 4, and threw a battery of tests at them. Everything he could think of.

And then, he went to those same kids, annually, for years. (Over the years, the tests changed, to reflect his subject's age.)

He followed these kids till they were like 30.

And then, he separated his kids into the ones that "grew up gay", and the ones that didn't.

And he went back, and looked at the old tests he'd given them, when they were little.

His question was "what's the earliest age, at which the kids who turned out to be gay, performed differently from the ones that didn't?"

And what he found, was that even at age 4, there were test results from his subjects, that correlated better than 98% with whether the subject would grow up gay.

His conclusion was that he can't prove whether gay is genetic, or learned. But that if it's learned, it's learned before age 4.

I don't know of a single study where somebody followed people up over 20 years later.

That would be monumental task for a single reseacher. Though there has been a lot of work done on post-adulthood studies looking at childhood behavior and some stuff done in the teen years where the person is then followed up several years later.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/09/15/is-your-child-a-prehomosexual-forecasting-adult-sexual-orientation/

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/04/femininitymasculinity-predicts-male.html

**EDIT**

Just to be clear, from Jumbo's post, I mean I don't know of a stuyd on homosexuality that followed people up 20 years later. There are clearly various studies that have done with long term affects being the goal, but I don't know of one that is related to homosexuality, and the ones I do know of are carried out by organizations or multiple people.

One of the most well known of these types of long term studies is the Nurses' Health Study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses'_Health_Study

[Jumbo]

Unfiltered Jumbo is my favorite, just sayin.

Alright HH----I’ve never been one to worry about showing my warts, obviously.

I was actually just trying to be considerate to the thread after seeing what I wrote.:pfft:

But given your comment above and others' more recent posts, here it is unfiltered. And I really don’t expect anyone to read it (too long).

I apologize in advance for whichever of my many argument-construction or behavioral flaws I may have displayed in it during my state of brain-fry. :cool:

I'm going to stay out of this one after this post, but will read, just due to time constraints mainly, and because I've addressed human sexuality at length here before (one of my professional strong suits I'm told---you have no idea how hard I'm trying not to add it also being a personal strong suit ) a few times but it is one of the matters that usually even smart people venture into "assume and presume modes" too casually, or operate on less than current important knowledge, or simply get things wrong in their presentations.

BTW, P, (a little OT) the "alcoholic" thing (always an alky") isn't really so unless you use a custom closed-loop self-validating definition (which is meaningless, technically), though it's still a bromide in many 12-step meetings and among society at large and it does fit a significant percentage of those who have drank into the dependence stage and stayed there for years. 12-step programs, many treatment centers, many related clinicians operating on decades old models, and the typical layman, are often unaware of how much more has been learned in just the last decade. The short version is issues of substance abuse and dependence are notably less accurately subject to broad, sweeping, pigeon-holing than previously, and commonly, thought. But I won’t get further into that now, either.

The whole "homosexuality as a mental illness in general” is a longstanding professional embarrassment for the mental health and behavioral science community and was also an unfortunate and too-typical reflection of politics playing a role where it "shouldn't", but will.

I saw Peter mention epigenetic factors in these matters and he had a link to a Scientific American blog. The March print issue has an article on neuroscience’s investigating “jumping genes” and their roles in allowing for uniqueness of personality and these are all very likely players in human sexuality (and other matters of behavior of course), along with many other factors. Revolutions in understanding/charting brain chemistry, related biological systems, and neuroscience in general are powerfully shaping psychology/behavioral science in its maturation.

One important thing to remember--the vast array of sexual conduct by humans ( a rather diverse subject specie, behaviorally :pfft:) are hardly neatly divided into a couple of uniform and rigid causal channels all of the time.

(btw, Peter, I do remember examining a few 20-year plus studies done where subjects were tracked over that time and these were indeed on childhood issues and various developmental matters fwiw).

Anyway, I'm not intending my comment as chiding at all, more of a "heads-up/reminder" that there's a lot to know in this matter and unless you're really involved in it (certainly LSF can speak from a personal authority position on her perceptions/experiences), it's hard to be on top of it.

I'm a smart guy and a gen-u-wine expert :gap: in two distinct and complex fields, but if I was pontificating on the constitution and law, or advanced biochemistry, or the historical non-biblical accounts of Jesus (even though I know a fair amount of some of that stuff) and I did so "too long" or in too much serious detail, I'm sure Predicto, PeterMP, or techboy, would note my limitations at some point. :shutup:

In turn, even someone expert in a very intellectually demanding field, and of solid intelligence in general, is not going to able to always speak with authority on complex matters in other areas--especially at a cutting edge level or the “state of the art” in that matter. It’s why different fields have different experts at the top (with rare exceptions) after all.

Of course, here in the internet forums, we even have people of far less competence than I describe who seem to think they are “smart enough” to have figured out a lot about everything, or at least “suspect” they know a great deal about it even if they can't "convincingly" state it "well enough" for their taste in whatever the conversational situation.

With egos, amygdalas, and some of our cultural habits as major players, seeking relative levels of accuracy (even when possible) in the discussion of many topics by a wide range of participants is often quite the process , and we are all vulnerable to those and other occluding factors---some of us more than others. :evilg:

I do think some people really should note how "comfortable" they are with strongly opining on so many matters. Really, almost no one is that sharp and some should really do a lot more listening/reaidng or simply asking honest (No Guile Involved) questions (without a pre-decided uber-firm position in mind) than just trying to inject their "knowing" take on yet another subject.

Retuning to our other tangent a bit, my favorite AA saying (of literally hundreds) was probably "humility is the spiritual foundation of all our principles." There was a time I believe when humility was a most sacred trait for a Christian to have, perhaps only next to an acceptance of Christ as their savior.

I also wonder how it is for a devout Christian scientist in these matters, for whom homosexuality (even unmarried hereto sex, or oral sex, re: some Bible content theological interpretation) must be considered a sin, and for sin to be sin it has to be made with a free and conscious choice as a departure from what’s “right” (i.e. Lenny in Mice & Men kills and is accountable legally and socially, but would the Christian God say their act was sin--the answer I usually get from well-versed clergy is “no”).

So if were fairly conclusively decided by science that homosexuality can be as “normal” as heterosexuality, and the findings socially accepted by enough to “make it so” in our culture, what would that do to the clear declaration of the Bible that it is undisputedly sinful? How would that affect the passionate degree so many have held that belief? Even those who “love the homosexual despite the sin” can be quite passionate about their belief that it still is sinful.

While I can figure people of such mindset rejecting it just as they may reject other science they find severely conflicting with their religion, I think the actual scientist who’s a serious Christian might find such rejection much harder to do and it would yield a real prompt to question that part of the bible---it's just an interesting speculation to me with significant implications. :geek:

Sorry, I'm more than rambling. I'm burnt-out tired but a little wired too (yeah, that state) and am on a five day road trip from Portland to Seattle with various stops in between and talking to way too many people singly and in groups but wanted to get a little ES fix after hearing about Fletcher resigning! yay! :point2sky

Ok I'm leaving now ---but sometime soon I am going to get back to Popeman for a reply he made to me in some other thread and boy is he going to be sorry because it made me think of a bunch of stuff! :pfft:

[thebluefood]

Not surprised. Most of the folks that claim homosexuality is a choice never met a gay person in their life. How come someone choose to be gay with the way they're treated and the inner turmoil involved in coming out (even in a relatively accepting environment).

This isn't a disease that can be cured. It's not a disease at all. End of story.

[Teller]

Jeebus, Jumbus. I'll make my way through that when I have some more time. I have to be back at work at 9 am Monday morning. :ols:

[Destino]

Why do people think human sexuality is as simple as gay or not gay? It's clearly more complicated than that. We know for instance that there are at least three options when you include bisexuality. There are also less common less accepted sexual behaviors and appetites out there. One behavior could have multiple origins.

[twa]

How come someone choose to be gay with the way they're treated and the inner turmoil involved in coming out (even in a relatively accepting environment).

How could someone choose to be a Saint's fan, back in the Aint's days?...a Emo in Iraq?

Believing choice is involved does not make it a disease,believing it is genetic could infer it being a defect or culling mechanism

I guess I'm a 1%er since I'm a free willer and have known many throughout my life

[mjah]

kindly show evidence of two thumbs before asserting it as fact

First, please show evidence that two thumbs would be "a symptom." As your definition of the term is distinctly non-dictionary in origin, you can go ahead and share that too.

As for the genetic basis, Larry's post has already shown more evidence for it being either genetic or learned before preschool than I have ever seen that it is merely "a choice." Regardless of your claimed leanings between theories, your "a person can change if they just really want to" claim, when made as a blanket statement, is pure nonsense.

Either stand up for your "symptoms" BS or admit that it's manure. But don't pretend you didn't say it.

[twa]

Your two thumbs example is a visible symptom of a likely genetic defect

Larry's post showed nothing definitive as far as solely genetic and I haven't termed it as solely a choice other than actions

Care to dispute self loathing will change behaviors?(WHICH is what I replied to)

WHICH was a reply to my assertion that when you decide something is sin you will work to change it

I fully believe free will trumps genetic dispositions in behavior or tastes IF you so choose, hell I could even refrain from arguing with you(despite my likely genetic disposition towards not doing so)

:pfft:

[Thiebear]

Obviously having sex with members of the same sex is a choice. Are you saying you believe finding members of the same sex to be sexually attractive is a conscious choice?

I'm saying throughout the history of our species, and observations of other species. (We choose whom we are with and in quite a few cases going back and forth.).

I don't believe there is anything "wired wrong' or they are weird people. They just chose not to hide what they like.

Society and religion being such a giant influence try and supress it. ***This is what i see as causing most of the issues*** You have to live by our code even in private.

And we will criticize you even if you're not a member of our club to scare those within.

The internet shows hetero's that have some very odd choices also in what they do to each other.

Sexual creatures have sex. And those that normally yell the loudest against it are in most cases guilty of hiding it.

I'm ambidextrious and went from left handed to right handed in golf. I liked it better that way. I throw left handed and write right handed.

I can shoot pool and darts and bowl and bat either way and pretty close to just as good.

If all 7billion people were exactly the same, that would be awful

I would agree with TWA on who would be a Catholic in the Hardcore of the Middle East? Is that coded in their dna no matter the consequences?

[Riggo-toni]

Question: If you don't have sex for 10 years are you gay or straight or neither?

There is a common term for men suffering from this affliction. It's called "Married."

[Burgold]

I think it's telling how homosexuality has always existed in the human species. It's mostly been a minority thing, so without offense, I'm guessing it would be considered a maladaptive genetic trait. Actually, it kind of has to be as it doesn't further the propagation of the species.

I fully believe that homosexuality is hardwired. I don't think it is particularly wrong or right, but rather just is. Can people choose to do things that go against their instincts and natural drives? They can. Should they have to. I don't believe so.

[twa]

Bur couldn't the reason it has existed is simply the pleasure derived?

[Burgold]

Bur couldn't the reason it has existed is simply the pleasure derived?

Nope. Pleasure at the expense of burning, shunning, and all the punishments visited throughout various cultures and periods make it extremely unlikely. Plus, that first instant reaction, blush, attraction is almost never conscious. It's physical... biological. Now, if you were to ask me is it binary, I'd argue no. I don't think you are or you aren't, but rather there are degrees of attraction. I think some are "gayer" than others for a lack of a better term and others are "straighter" than others.

There probably is a point on that continuum where you can choose and be happy either way. There is probably a point where happiness lies in only one direction.