Sexuality & Orientation: A question.

[marketandchurch]

This is a question I am very curious about, vis-a-vis the Christian/Muslim/Jew crowd. But atheists are welcome to chime in as well. Do you think sexuality is fixed?

If you think sexuality is fixed, what is your own personal explanation for the existence of other sexualities? Are there several possibilities vis-a-vis orientation, for the human creature? And by fixed nature, what do you believe is the strength of that rigidity?

Do you think it is somewhat of a spectrum wherein there are most of us, who have a fixed heterosexual orientation, a small group who have a fixed homosexual orientation, and an even tinier portion who are "confused," have multiple sexual identities, or no sexual identity at all?

In other words, please explain your view of the matter in full, and I would love to just get a cross-section of where Christians/Muslim/Jew are on the matter. It is incredibly helpful, because the premise we hold will frame the way we approach the issue of same-sex marriage.

Feel free to expand this to the greater Gay-Marriage debate if you wish, so long as it relates to gender, sexual orientation, and its affects on the society at large.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 249 by charles_hamm]

I take notice of the testimonies of the millions of homosexuals about their sexual orientation and not of those who reject those testimonies. Same same with the testimonials of trans-sexuals and other cases of intersex.

Is the relationship of an hermaphrodite with a man and/or a woman a heterosexual or homosexual relationship?

Will you also take notice of the testimonies of those who say they have changed their sexual orientation and that it was a choice for them or will you discard them?

Already answered this.

I will particularly pay attention to those who made that claim, then 'regress' and admit they really didn't. .. such as two of the founders of exodus international who 'found' each other there.

Will you also pay attention to the ones who don't 'regress' and remain heterosexual as well or will you discard them?

I suspect that many of those were bi-sexual to start with.

Or, don't you believe that bisexuals exist.

I also know that there is a great deal of pressure to be 'straight', rather than an alternative lifestyle.

I also know that when minors are forced to go through conversion therapy, there is a high level of suicide and drug use after that.. much much higher than the populations of gays and bi's that don't go through that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you will not believe these people when they say they have changed their sexual orientation. Whether I believe bi-sexuals exist or not is not relevant because you are only speculating that they were bi-sexual to start with.

Who brought up conversion therapy for minors? Conversion therapy should only be offered to people over the age of 18 who want to voluntarily go through it. It should not be forced on anyone.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

[/quote]
In May 2001, Robert Spitzer presented Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation", a study of attempts to change homosexual orientation through ex-gay ministries and conversion therapy, at the American Psychiatric Association's convention in New Orleans. The study was partly a response to the APA's 2000 statement cautioning against clinical attempts at changing homosexuality, and was aimed at determining whether such attempts were ever successful rather than how likely it was that change would occur for any given individual. Spitzer wrote that some earlier studies provided evidence for the effectiveness of therapy in changing sexual orientation, but that all of them suffered from methodological problems.[6]

He reported that after intervention, 66% of the men and 44% of the women had achieved "Good Heterosexual Functioning", which he defined as requiring five criteria (being in a loving heterosexual relationship during the last year, overall satisfaction in emotional relationship with a partner, having heterosexual sex with the partner at least a few times a month, achieving physical satisfaction through heterosexual sex, and not thinking about having homosexual sex more than 15% of the time while having heterosexual sex). He found that the most common reasons for seeking change were lack of emotional satisfaction from gay life, conflict between same-sex feelings and behavior and religious beliefs, and desire to marry or remain married.[6][90][dead link] This paper was widely reported in the international media and taken up by politicians in the United States, Germany, and Finland, and by conversion therapists.[6]

In 2003, Spitzer published the paper in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Spitzer's study has been criticized on numerous ethical and methodological grounds, and "press releases from both NGLTF and HRC sought to undermine Spitzer's credibility by connecting him politically to right-wing groups that had backed the ex-gay movement." The Advocate - Jun 19, 2001. Gay activists argued that the study would be used by conservatives to undermine gay rights.[6] Spitzer acknowledged that the study sample consisted of people who sought treatment primarily because of their religious beliefs (93% of the sample), served in various church-related functions, and who publicly spoke in favor of changing homosexual orientation (78%), and thus were strongly motivated to overreport success. Critics felt he dismissed this source of bias, without even attempting to measure deception or self-deception (a standard practice in self-reporting psychological tests like MMPI-2).[91] That participants had to rely upon their memories of what their feelings were before treatment may have distorted the findings. It was impossible to determine whether any change that occurred was due to the treatment because it was not clear what it involved and there was no control group.[6] Spitzer's own data showed that claims of change were reflected mostly in changes in self-labelling and behavior, less in attractions, and least in the homoerotic content during the masturbatory fantasies; this particular finding was consistent with other studies in this area.[92] Participants may have been bisexual before treatment. Follow-up studies were not conducted.[6] Spitzer stressed the limitations of his study. Spitzer said that the number of gay people who could successfully become heterosexual was likely to be "pretty low",[93] and conceded that his subjects were "unusually religious."[94]


Spitzer renounced[95][96] and retracted his own study in 2012, stating "I was quite wrong in the conclusions that I made from this study. The study does not provide evidence, really, that gays can change. And that’s quite an admission on my part."[61][97][98][99] He also apologized to the gay community for making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy,[62] calling it his only professional regret.[63] Spitzer has requested that all "ex-gay" therapy organizations such as NARTH, PFOX, American College of Pediatricians, and Focus on the Family stop citing his study as evidence for conversion therapy.[99]

[/quote]

It seems that even some of people who did studies on it, and promoted it have changed their minds. I find that very telling.

[bluethread]

As

[Replying to post 275 by charles_hamm] Despite your protests, the bible indicates that Jesus probably wasn't a heterosexual and that he had a drinking problem.

I have stated several times before, it does not. That is your inference based on your demonstrated bias, not on any rational exegesis. There is not historical, grammatical or contextual reason to conclude that Yeshua was anything other than a heterosexual.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 277 by charles_hamm] Fair enough. So if a genetically-male person with a constructed vagina and no penis has a relationship with a normal man then that is a homosexual relationship, whereas if she has a relationship with a normal woman then that is therefore a heterosexual relationship according to your reasoning. And this contrasts to a similar genetically-male person with Swyer syndrome whose relationship with a normal man is a heterosexual one and with a normal woman is a homosexual one. Hmmm!!! I wonder if this bloke, created in the image of the biblical writers, is also so confused? http://Sofadasala.com/english/jahova.htm

[mitty]

A

As

[Replying to post 275 by charles_hamm] Despite your protests, the bible indicates that Jesus probably wasn't a heterosexual and that he had a drinking problem.

I have stated several times before, it does not. That is your inference based on your demonstrated bias, not on any rational exegesis. There is not historical, grammatical or contextual reason to conclude that Yeshua was anything other than a heterosexual.

Alas the bible doesn't back up your suggestion that he was a heterosexual or that he didn't have a drinking problem.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 252 by charles_hamm]

And what type of hormone therapy is that? Does it make those genetically male persons with Swyer syndrome start menstruating and ovulating?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

Estrogen and progesterone therapy. Menstruating yes, ovulating I am unsure about.

So what's the difference between the hormone treatment of those with Swyer syndrome (ie genetically male) and a trans-sexual who's genitals are surgically changed to match their gender identity. And I can assure you that the unformed testes of someone with Swyer syndrome will not start ovulating, and if they did what would be the fate of the 25% of all embryos with a YY sex-chromosome configuration. And it doesn't matter if someone with Swyer syndrome is referred to as a girl, they are still genetically male.

A trans-sexual self identifies his/her gender so that is strictly a matter of choice. There is nothing in his/her anatomy to necessitate the surgery. A person with Swyer syndrome has a condition that can be treated with the therapies I listed. That condition necessitates the treatment.

If a person tells you they have Swyer syndrome and tells you they are female, are you going to dispute them? If so then doesn't that wipe out the whole notion of self identifying gender?

No treatment of Swyer syndrome can alter the fact that they are genetically male. Can you change your gender identity at will, and do you dream that you are a male person in some of your dreams and a female person in other dreams, or do you think your gender identity is set at birth?

If a person tells you they are a genetically-male trans-sexual who has had a sex-change operation to match their gender identity and tells you that they are female, are you going to dispute that and tell that person to use the male lavatories instead of the female lavatories?

I'll address your questions once you have answered mine. It's a simple question. Will you dispute them or agree with them?

I reject your suggestion that gender identity is not set at birth. Your turn!!! Should a genetically-male person with a surgically-made vagina and no penis use the male lavatory or a female lavatory?

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 275 by charles_hamm] Despite your protests, the bible indicates that Jesus probably wasn't a heterosexual and that he had a drinking problem.

Actually the only thing that indicates this is your interpretation of the bible. You look at it and apply your bias against it to see what you want to see, in my opinion. You have yet to provide any proof for what you claim.

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 279 by Goat]

This is one study that was flawed from the beginning. No control group. Why even do the study.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 275 by charles_hamm] Despite your protests, the bible indicates that Jesus probably wasn't a heterosexual and that he had a drinking problem.

Actually the only thing that indicates this is your interpretation of the bible. You look at it and apply your bias against it to see what you want to see, in my opinion. You have yet to provide any proof for what you claim.

And you don't interpret the bible to support your bias and predjuces? Hmmmm!!! Alas, no one has been able to provide any evidence that Jesus was a heterosexual and didn't have a drinking problem as indicated by the bible.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 279 by Goat]

This is one study that was flawed from the beginning. No control group. Why even do the study.

There is many more studies, and guess what.. the ones that say the sexual identity is fluid all have flaws.

It seems all the people who have studies saying that conversion therapy work are selling conversion therapy

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 277 by charles_hamm] Fair enough. So if a genetically-male person with a constructed vagina and no penis has a relationship with a normal man then that is a homosexual relationship, whereas if she has a relationship with a normal woman then that is therefore a heterosexual relationship according to your reasoning. And this contrasts to a similar genetically-male person with Swyer syndrome whose relationship with a normal man is a heterosexual one and with a normal woman is a homosexual one. Hmmm!!! I wonder if this bloke, created in the image of the biblical writers, is also so confused? http://Sofadasala.com/english/jahova.htm

Once again you have overlooked the fact that the trans-sexual had to change his/her sex to become what he/she wanted to be. It has nothing to do with genetics. It contrast because a female who has Swyer syndrome already has the anatomy of a female, vagina, clitoris, etc. with the exception of the ovaries. The fact that she is genetically male is part of a disease, not a choice she made. There really is no confusion anywhere here. The trans-sexual was born with a gender defined by the sexual appendage he/she had. Doctors don't ask a baby what sex they are. They look. The argument you are making simply doesn't add up. What it implies is that a perfectly healthy individual would purposely give themselves a medical condition (Swyer syndrome). Think about that for a little.