I appreciate your response Ed, I respect others views and your remarks are valuable.

I wanted to go throught your response a little more thoroughly so I can understand it better.
Originally Posted By: EdfromNYC
I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion. I don't believe one man's opinion - one day one thing, one day another (changed due to old age and fear of a bad legacy maybe?) means more than one man's opinion.

Ed i am not sure what conclusion you disagree with. One mans opinion changing is not what happened here. He is the author the has written a treatise that is used as a basis and justification for a viewpoint. The scientfic method holds that when new evidence is presented that an author is justified in changing the original conclusion. His work was not written in stone.

Its very similar to Mike Wallace from 60 minutes when they did the first tv story on gay men in America. He later retracted it, saying that he was just going on what the Drs and the time said. http://www.edgeonthenet.com/news/national/news//131887/mike_wallace’s_death_brings_back_a_notorious_cbs_anti-gay_documentary_ "I should have known better" he later said.

Originally Posted By: EdfromNYC
I don't believe its as simple as you might put it. Besides, there is a complete lack of scientific agreement/basis for the roots of orientation. It is generally accepted that it is a combo of nature/nurture, not just nature.

I did not say that it was just nature, I only said that given this set of circumstances and given the evidence coming to light through objective observation, that it is certainly a possibility and may account for some confusion of orienation.
Originally Posted By: EdfromNYC
I don't believe in calling the movement ex-gay. I think that's a problem. I think its about all men, whether at one time gay-oriented or not, finding comfort in being able to move toward sexual wholeness regardless of whether the outcome is somehow threatening to certain groups heavily invested in confirming their own beliefs (beliefs, not facts).

I feel strongly on this topic and will always counter what I consider too much one-sidedness on the issue of orientation. However, it is not done with hostility.

The term Ex-gay is from the movement itself, i am not calling them that , they are. But i agree, its about men coming to terms with sexuality and achieving sexual wholeness. Thats the goal for all of us.

There is no threatening by a group "heavily invested in confirming their own beliefs". These studies were published in peer reviewed journals, thats is the scientific process. And again i am not sure what you mean beliefs not facts. Not sure what your referring to here. I take it to mean that is it an opinion that these men who are homophobic actually have attraction to other males. That is a fact, not a belief.

The study does not differentiate or attempt to say the are gay. Only they have gay like tendencies in terms of sexuality. As we know there can be attraction to males without necessarily being gay. But if men repress this possibility, their maladaptive behavior that does not allow a person to be who they could be without all the inner conflict and turmoil imposed by others expectations, religious dogma and societal acceptance.

Again its not about one sidedness, I am presenting what is out there, what has been published not mearly opined. These are not my words or conclusions, but the more information all of us have here, regardless on our path, isnt that healthier for everyone?

Its interesting many months ago. This was this view was presented by another member on here who quoted this:

Elephant in the Pew: Same Sex Attraction http://victoryatl.com/p/12162/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=&MediaID=281

I listened to it several times just to make sure i got it correct. This is his direct quote at the end.
‘If god cant change a little thing like sexuality then he is not a true god’
Is this view one sided? You are correct, orientation seems in humans to have multiple components to its genesis, however one thing has been clear there has Never been any evidence that the above statement is true, in any way.

Perhaps it would be better if we just accepted that, that somehow you could just change from gay to straight or straight to gay. Firstly it seems to be a one way street. I dont see any or know of any gay organization trying to convert any straight people and. Second, it would be so much easier NOT to be gay. Easier on the families, the person themselves not being subject to being a second class citizen without the same rights as straight people. Who would chose this, "The gay lifestyle". Sort of sounds whimsical, like a style of dress, beard no beard, social convention, trends, fashion. Being gay is not an Easter Bonnet. Its who a person is, the person can either accept it or not. Act on it or not. But change it like a wide lapelled polyester leisure suit, they cannot.

So thats the point here. Regardless of gay being nature or nuture or a combination, these men are not able to accept themselves being gay or even the possibility they may be, so they harm/or try to change those that do accept it. Hostility is not a my goal in anyway. Honesty and intent is.



Edited by 1lifenow (04/17/12 02:41 AM)
Edit Reason: spelling, again
The need for love lies at the very foundation of human existence. Dalai Lama

WoR Barrie 2011