Page 76 of 191 « First<7475767778>Last »
Topic Options
#224701 - Thu Feb 26 2004 07:45 PM Re: Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage [Re: Matter-eater Man]
Pariah
Offline The conscience of the rkmbs!

Registered: Sun Sep 07 2003
Posts: 30674
Loc: Fucktard Valley, CA
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:


As for the recent study, keep in mind the people undergoing the therapy were people who desperately didn't want to be gay. Plus it only followed them for so long. (I think a 6 months to a year)

Other studies funded by people & organization with a clear agenda tend to keep no or bad records or are now living with their life partners.




This doesn't make a bit of difference MEM. If they're born gay based off of the reasoning being handed here, they're going to STAY that way.

Also...

There were interviews that noted their adamant voices in assuring that they were BORN gay. They weren't desperately trying to change anything.

I'm lost without the sig divider.

Top
#224702 - Thu Feb 26 2004 07:46 PM Re: Chicago to Allow Same-Sex Marriage? [Re: Animalman]
Pariah
Offline The conscience of the rkmbs!

Registered: Sun Sep 07 2003
Posts: 30674
Loc: Fucktard Valley, CA
Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Kristogar Velo said:
I don't know a whole lot about the subject, but the interviews I've read with the people who have been "saved" just makes them sound completely and utterly brainwashed. My theory is that they do an A Clockwork Orange job on them.

...just so I don't get dragged into the middle of this, I'm letting you all know that the last line was tongue-in-cheek.




Heh, I was going to say something similar, but I thought it would be taken the wrong way. Thanks for saying it for me.




Still shouldn't make any difference if they're born gay.

I'm lost without the sig divider.

Top
#224703 - Thu Feb 26 2004 08:49 PM Re: Chicago to Allow Same-Sex Marriage? [Re: Pariah]
Animalman
Offline 10000+ posts

Registered: Sun Oct 28 2001
Posts: 14896
Loc: At Large
Quote:

Pariah said:
Still shouldn't make any difference if they're born gay.




....if they were brainwashed? Brainwashing could make an Irishman sober. Once you break a human being down, you could convince them they're anything.

I'm not saying that's what happened(and again, I would like to read more about this program you're talking about), but if it was brainwashing, being born a certain way wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.

MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.

Top
#224704 - Thu Feb 26 2004 09:43 PM Re: Chicago to Allow Same-Sex Marriage? [Re: Animalman]
Pariah
Offline The conscience of the rkmbs!

Registered: Sun Sep 07 2003
Posts: 30674
Loc: Fucktard Valley, CA
Well, I still don't exactly buy it....

I can't find it. I'll resume tomorrow. I'm too tired of working to work anymore.

I'm lost without the sig divider.

Top
#224705 - Fri Feb 27 2004 12:40 AM Re: Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage [Re: Pariah]
Matter-eater Man
Online   argumentative Fair Play!

Registered: Sat Jun 07 2003
Posts: 13719
Quote:

Pariah said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:


As for the recent study, keep in mind the people undergoing the therapy were people who desperately didn't want to be gay. Plus it only followed them for so long. (I think a 6 months to a year)

Other studies funded by people & organization with a clear agenda tend to keep no or bad records or are now living with their life partners.




This doesn't make a bit of difference MEM. If they're born gay based off of the reasoning being handed here, they're going to STAY that way.

Also...

There were interviews that noted their adamant voices in assuring that they were BORN gay. They weren't desperately trying to change anything.




You're reading a different article then me then. The one I read just last week certainly was made up of those who desperately wanted to change. Even then the "cure" rate was very low. Can't imagine why anyone would go into conversion therapy otherwise. If you find it & get the chance please post a link.

As for it not making a difference, not sure I follow you on that one but I'll give it a shot. You demand an absolute 0 percent conversion rate, even one proves it's not a genetic trait? Again any time I've read about this stuff, it's for gays who are intensley "cutting the wrist time" unhappy with their homosexuality. A common theme I've come across reading survivor stories after therapy, these people came from parents that would not accept their child being gay. Imagine a child growing up thinking they're damned & that their abhominations! Thats a pretty powerful incentive to want to be normal. If I had to guess the therapy might help these people fool themselves for a bit of time. That tiny success rate gets smaller as time goes by though. I suspect thats the reason we don't see records tracking patients for any length of time. The antigay groups that fund these things are not interested in that data.

Fair play!

Top
#224706 - Fri Feb 27 2004 02:15 AM Re: Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage [Re: Matter-eater Man]
Pariah
Offline The conscience of the rkmbs!

Registered: Sun Sep 07 2003
Posts: 30674
Loc: Fucktard Valley, CA
MEM, that's all nice and lovely, but I said before that the gay patients were proving a point. They KNEW they were gay, but ended up not being gay. That's exactly what the program targeted (if only I could find the fucking page).

If I'm wrong and you're factoring this in, then are you just saying that those kids who aren't accepted would become ungay in no time because they WANT to? I mean, to me, with all the reasoning being passed around about being naturally gay, it shouldn't make a difference. And going about explaining the conversion like it's psychosematic doesn't make much sense either considering that those kids were raised in a straight environment.

I'm lost without the sig divider.

Top
#224707 - Fri Feb 27 2004 11:31 AM Re: Chicago to Allow Same-Sex Marriage? [Re: Animalman]
Jim Jackson
Offline 6000+ posts

Registered: Sat May 24 2003
Posts: 7030
Loc: Columbus, OH
Dave TWB: "This is the United States of America, whose form of government is clearly founded by Christians, and based on Christian principles"

I don't have evidence in front of me to debate your point about the founding fathers being Christian...and trust me, this is debatable point...but...these Christian principles you speak of are NOT made explicit in the US Constitution. The freedom of religion makes explict the fact that this is not a J-C theocracy. The Bible is not the US. Constitution.

Jim

PS. The reason I aim any of this at you is because you're the biggest mouth and potentially the narrowest mind on this subject in this forum.

We all wear a green carnation.

Top
#224708 - Fri Feb 27 2004 11:32 AM Re: Chicago to Allow Same-Sex Marriage? [Re: Animalman]
Jim Jackson
Offline 6000+ posts

Registered: Sat May 24 2003
Posts: 7030
Loc: Columbus, OH
""all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Got it. But he didn't say "Jesus," or "Yahweh," or "the God of Abraham." And he didn't say any names for a reason.

We all wear a green carnation.

Top
#224709 - Fri Feb 27 2004 12:03 PM Rehabilitation? [Re: Jim Jackson]
Captain Sammitch
Offline terrible podcaster

Registered: Fri Sep 20 2002
Posts: 17767
Loc: painesville, oh
I wasn't gonna jump in on this point, but I've seen a number of men leave the homosexual lifestyle and not go back and not be miserable for the rest of our lives. Our church assisted the Exodus Int'l organization in their programs for homosexuals who wanted to leave it behind. These guys came to us and announced they were sick of their lives, that they were going nowhere, that they felt empty, unfulfilled, sick of what they were doing.

We didn't throw the book at them - they already knew what they needed to know. What we did do is really the only thing that works - and possibly what the church has failed most embarrassingly to do until now. We didn't wait for them to miraculously totally 'clean up' to accept them. We accepted them just as they were and showed them the love and attention they hadn't gotten elsewhere.

Several families each took one of those men and 'adopted' them for a year, inviting them to come live in their homes, and basically treated them as part of the family. No big, drawn-out lectures about how it's an abomination or how they were going to hell or anything like that. (I seriously doubt there are any gay men who haven't heard that more times than they can count.)

No, they were just part of the family. Everyone in the church spent time with them, got to know them better, and we all basically did our best to show these guys that they were loved simply for who they were. At the end of that year, we let them decide what they were going to do, and kept in touch with those who couldn't stay in the area at least once a week. After five years, not one of those twenty men has gone back to the gay lifestyle.

I'm not concerned with whether or not gays are born with a tendency toward a certain lifestyle. I'm not concerned with how politicizers might disagree with what we're doing - or how churches might disagree with what we're doing (and quite a few do). All we're trying to do is prove that it's possible to find acceptance and love without being enslaved to tendencies toward a destructive lifestyle (which is what they called it, btw). We didn't pull a 'Clockwork Orange' move on them. We just made sure they experienced what they hadn't yet been given - a feeling of worth beyond the things they did, a realization that you do have control over what you do (even if that control only extends as far as going to get help) and you are more than the sum of the choices you make.

Say what you want about me or my church or our methods, but I know dozens of men who are leading fulfilled lives today, after leaving the gay lifestyle behind. It's entirely possible, no matter how un-PC or potentially 'offensive' it might be. It's just up to people to decide for themselves whether or not to give it a try.

go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ

Top
#224710 - Fri Feb 27 2004 12:08 PM Re: Chicago to Allow Same-Sex Marriage? [Re: Jim Jackson]
Captain Sammitch
Offline terrible podcaster

Registered: Fri Sep 20 2002
Posts: 17767
Loc: painesville, oh
Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
""all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Got it. But he didn't say "Jesus," or "Yahweh," or "the God of Abraham." And he didn't say any names for a reason.




He said it because it was implicit, Jim. There was no PC movement back then, and even though there was a diversity of patterns of worship among the churches in the colonies (the preservation of which was one of the primary reasons for the founding of the colonies in the first place), they all ascribed worship to the same God. Even deists and Freemasons (the only 'religious minorities' of the day) completely understood this, and it wouldn't have been anything but representative to go ahead and say Yahweh (or Jehovah, the Roman-alphabet transliteration of Yahweh) or any other Judeo-Christian name for God.

Slightly different religious and political environment back then.

go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ

Top
Page 76 of 191 « First<7475767778>Last »


Hop to:
June
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Forum Stats
3000 Members
14 Forums
65458 Topics
1186304 Posts

Max Online: 1242 @ Thu Mar 31 2016 02:41 PM
New Topics
Donald Trump's greatest hits
by Wonder Boy
GAMESTOP Considering Buyout
by the G-man
Article No. 671011
by tuvwxy575640
Page No. 65213
by tuvwxy575640
Essay No. 491066
by tuvwxy575640
article No. 49378
by defghi801270
My solution to the child-immigrant crisis, "separating children from families"
by Wonder Boy
article No. 59564
by tuvwxy575640
article No. 811058
by defghi801270
This is article No. 75188
by defghi801270