This claim had been a central tenet in "the gay agenda" for years, since at least the 80s. But it seems that many on the left are quietly moving on from that claim (even while holding fast to the idea that it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone can change one's sexual orientation).

This year, "heteroflexible" is the fastest growing "sexual orientation."

So, the question might be revisited: is "sexual orientation" a fixed, innate part of one's discovered identity?

I'll add this: if you think it IS fixed, what do you do with people who call themselves heteroflexible?

In reply to Quad Dog

Quad Dog said:

---

You should voluntarily change your sexual orientation for a year to prove to everyone if it is a choice or not.

---

I don't understand your response. Can you make your argument more explicit for me?

Also, would you mind answering both of the questions I asked?

There's a reason "Gay for the stay" is a saying.

In reply to Principal Uncertainty

Principal Uncertainty said:

---

There's a reason "Gay for the stay" is a saying.

---

Is that dudes having gay sex in prison?

In reply to fat girlfriend Yes, but there's a hierarchy of who is serviced and who is doing the serving (penetrated). It's much like homosexuality in ancient Rome, where the older, high-status male was never penetrated by the younger (usually teenage) male. I once read a 1st or 2nd century Roman auto-biography where the guy picked up such a male "slave" for a while an then abandoned the practice. The truth is, it's always been slightly fluid. But the crowed that wants not to be called out by the religious created the inflexibility model to justify their actions.

In reply to Principal Uncertainty

Principal Uncertainty said:

---

Yes, but there's a hierarchy of who is serviced and who is doing the serving (penetrated). It's much like homosexuality in ancient Rome, where the older, high-status male was never penetrated by the younger (usually teenage) male. I once read a 1st or 2nd century Roman auto-biography where the guy picked up such a male "slave" for a while a then abandoned the practice. The truth is, it's always been slightly fluid. But the crowed that wants not to be called out by the religious created the inflexibility model to justify their actions.

---

Did you know in Ancient Greece the socially acceptable sex had between older men and younger boys didn't typically involve penetration? It was intercrural or thigh sex.

In fact, there was a case of a slave boy killing his master. His defense was that his master penetrated him. They let him walk, calling that a valid defense!

There is scarcely a more consistent form of failure than most every variation and concerted attempt at "pray the gay away". Why do you suppose that is?

In reply to Sapper Redux

Sapper Redux said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

This claim had been a central tenet in "the gay agenda" for years, since at least the 80s. But it seems that many on the left are quietly moving on from that claim (even while holding fast to the idea that it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone can change one's sexual orientation).

This year, "heteroflexible" is the fastest growing "sexual orientation."

So, the question might be revisited: is "sexual orientation" a fixed, innate part of one's discovered identity?

---

Why do you assume sexuality is a binary rather than on a continuum?

---

Depravity does exist on a continuum insofar as there are different levels of it, and sexual abuse can manifest itself in an infinite number of ways.

In reply to The Banned This seems to operate under both the premise that all forms of homosexuality are exclusively caused by some trauma or similar childhood experience and simultaneously agrees that orientation won't change. So is this therapy trying to encourage acceptance and celibacy?

In reply to Aggrad08

Aggrad08 said:

---

This seems to operate under both the premise that all forms of homosexuality are exclusively caused by some trauma or similar childhood experience and simultaneously agrees that orientation won't change. So is this therapy trying to encourage acceptance and celibacy?

---

You can google Dr. Nicolosi's work if it interests you. No child is a sexual being, and no child is "oriented" towards one sex or the other. We all come into our sexuality as we grow. When things happen in our life that confuse how we see ourselves or others, it can affect how we see ourselves sexually when that time comes. It's not much different than how some children can develop anxiety issues, depression, addictions, etc as they grow. No child is genetically wired to be that way (although some people are more predisposed). Or how purity culture can create a negative association with sex so deep that even when they marry someone, sex can still feel shameful/dirty/wrong. These types of issues are developed experientially.

Nicolosi (and others) don't work on "orientation". They work on helping the person understand why they feel the way they do. That's the sole goal of the therapy. The goal isn't celibacy or hetero marriage per se. Just help people understand. What they do with that knowledge is up to them. Similar to the goal of helping a depressed or anxious person to understand why they have the negative thought patterns they do. Presumably the person doesn't want to feel that way anymore and uses this knowledge to change their situation, but that goal is up to the individual. And it's always a process.

There a pretty sizeable number of interviews with people who struggled with same sex attraction and have gone on to successful hetero relationships/marriages. They're very interesting to listen to

In reply to Beer Baron

Beer Baron said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

I'll add this: if you think it IS fixed, what do you do with people who call themselves heteroflexible?

---

Basically they're bi, but lean toward preferring people of the opposite gender.

---

It seems there are a growing number of bisexual people now. Isn't that in tension with the claim that sexual orientation is fixed and innate?

In reply to Sapper Redux

Sapper Redux said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

This claim had been a central tenet in "the gay agenda" for years, since at least the 80s. But it seems that many on the left are quietly moving on from that claim (even while holding fast to the idea that it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone can change one's sexual orientation).

This year, "heteroflexible" is the fastest growing "sexual orientation."

So, the question might be revisited: is "sexual orientation" a fixed, innate part of one's discovered identity?

---

Why do you assume sexuality is a binary rather than on a continuum?

---

Are you suggesting that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate placement on a spectrum of some sort? What is this spectrum which is fixed by our innate nature?

In reply to BrazosDog02

BrazosDog02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

There are numerous podcasts with people who have left a gay lifestyle behind. When they are able to understand that these feelings are present because of something that happened TO them, they are then able to deal with and heal from said issues. This is a danger to the LGBT agenda, which is why "born this way" is so important to keep repeating, despite all the genetic studies showing your biology has very little to do with sexual orientation.

I feel bad for all the people who have been told this is just who they are. It's true that the feelings they have are not a choice at all, but those feelings have a origin that could be dealt with by proper counseling.

---

Ehhhh....I don't think you get to drop a statement like this and not produce at least two links to these studies. Those sound like junk science. I'd be curious to review those.

---

http://pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms#:~:text=The%20study%20shows%20that%20genes,based%20on%20the%20study's%20results.

Currently on a work computer, so limited in what I can search. Here is an article from PBS (of all places) that cites the studies. I think you can take it from there. Genetics play a limited role in same sex attraction. Even the pro-LGBT outlier studies say it plays no more than 40% of the role, so even if we take the biased outliers, the major originating factor is environmental. This is not debated scientifically. Only modern culture that has swallowed the "born this way" refrain still thinks it has merit.

In reply to fat girlfriend

fat girlfriend said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

This claim had been a central tenet in "the gay agenda" for years, since at least the 80s. But it seems that many on the left are quietly moving on from that claim (even while holding fast to the idea that it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone can change one's sexual orientation).

This year, "heteroflexible" is the fastest growing "sexual orientation."

So, the question might be revisited: is "sexual orientation" a fixed, innate part of one's discovered identity?

---

Why do you assume sexuality is a binary rather than on a continuum?

---

Are you suggesting that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate placement on a spectrum of some sort? What is this spectrum which is fixed by our innate nature?

---

What is it with religious people and the obsession with fixed "types"? That's not how complex organisms operate. They rarely fit neatly into constructed boxes to make things simple for you. Sexuality exists on a continuum. People can find things attractive for a variety of reasons and then not later on. It's not a "fixed nature," though genetics and research does suggest most people are more attracted to certain things and tend to be relatively stable in that attraction.

In reply to The Banned

The Banned said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

There are numerous podcasts with people who have left a gay lifestyle behind. When they are able to understand that these feelings are present because of something that happened TO them, they are then able to deal with and heal from said issues. This is a danger to the LGBT agenda, which is why "born this way" is so important to keep repeating, despite all the genetic studies showing your biology has very little to do with sexual orientation.

I feel bad for all the people who have been told this is just who they are. It's true that the feelings they have are not a choice at all, but those feelings have a origin that could be dealt with by proper counseling.

---

Ehhhh....I don't think you get to drop a statement like this and not produce at least two links to these studies. Those sound like junk science. I'd be curious to review those.

---

http://pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms#:~:text=The%20study%20shows%20that%20genes,based%20on%20the%20study's%20results.

Currently on a work computer, so limited in what I can search. Here is an article from PBS (of all places) that cites the studies. I think you can take it from there. Genetics play a limited role in same sex attraction. Even the pro-LGBT outlier studies say it plays no more than 40% of the role, so even if we take the biased outliers, the major originating factor is environmental. This is not debated scientifically. Only modern culture that has swallowed the "born this way" refrain still thinks it has merit.

---

"This is not debated scientifically." Cites an article discussing scientific studies.

In reply to Sapper Redux Scientific studies that show there is no debate on this anymore. I can go add "anymore" to my other post if it makes you feel better

In reply to The Banned It seems like you view the continuum thing as someone's preferences moving all over the place, rather than just falling within a certain window along it. Look at how people view food. Some people only eat steak and potatoes, and other people love sampling new foods from all over the world. Do genes explain that? Maybe. Maybe not. Does it matter? Some people just have more varied tastes than others, and it wouldn't make much sense to tell the adventurous eater to just stop liking Ramen and Biryani any more than it would be to tell the picky eater that they need to enjoy them.

In reply to Sapper Redux

Quote:

---

People can find things attractive for a variety of reasons and then not later on.

---

I agree with that completely. Why are you insulting me?

For the record, though, there are people who claim that sexual orientation is fixed and innate, and not something that can be changed.

I am a little confused by your take on "types."

I take it that it's not contentious to say that we're all of the type "human." Natural kinds is a pretty standard part of biology.

(In fact, any discussion of homosexuality or heterosexuality at all is incoherent without an acceptance of "types."

In reply to Beer Baron

Beer Baron said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Beer Baron said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

I'll add this: if you think it IS fixed, what do you do with people who call themselves heteroflexible?

---

Basically they're bi, but lean toward preferring people of the opposite gender.

---

It seems there are a growing number of bisexual people now. Isn't that in tension with the claim that sexual orientation is fixed and innate?

---

I don't think so. Whatever turns a person's head is pretty fixed and innate. Some people are just attracted to a bigger variety of people and characteristics. I'd also disagree that there are more bi people now. More people just feel comfortable with being open about it.

---

What you're missing is that it's a GROWING number. This strongly suggests that a persons ability to be sexually aroused by people of given features is meaningfully impacted by social norms - thus not fixed and innate.

In reply to Beer Baron

Beer Baron said:

---

It seems like you view the continuum thing as someone's preferences moving all over the place, rather than just falling within a certain window along it. Look at how people view food. Some people only eat steak and potatoes, and other people love sampling new foods from all over the world. Do genes explain that? Maybe. Maybe not. Does it matter? Some people just have more varied tastes than others, and it wouldn't make much sense to tell the adventurous eater to just stop liking Ramen and Biryani any more than it would be to tell the picky eater that they need to enjoy them.

---

This is an interesting analogy. Off the top of my head, I'd probably push back in two ways:

1. Food preferences may vary, but we also see people intentionally choosing to change their diet because there is a "better" way to eat for the health of the body. We are continuing to study that, but it's fair to say that the modern American diet is "worse" for the human body than past diets, even if the average American enjoys the modern diet more than the previous one. Maybe we should tell people to stop enjoying Ramen if it's objectively bad for them. That's potentially problematic for the LGBT position

2. I would agree that whether or not food preferences are gene dependent doesn't matter that much, but the LGBT argument was fairly unsuccessful until the "born this way" argument came on the scene. It's much worse to discriminate against something the person has no control over (like skin color) than it is to discriminate against an action someone engages in (which we all do to some degree).

In reply to Beer Baron

Quote:

---

Every single time someone comes out, the number of confirmed LGBT people goes up by one, but they were still right there and still LGBT before anyone was counting them.

---

I wonder if you really believe this, deep down - that sexual orientation really IS fixed and innate, despite the wildly changing stats regarding their numbers.

Do you suppose that people in the past were just all too weak and stupid to recognize or admit who they really were, deep down? It's honestly seems to me so implausible. An act of blind faith.

In reply to Beer Baron In my experience when it comes to food, you can acquire a taste for things you used to dislike and a dislike for things you used to enjoy.