Box Turtle Bulletin

Jim,

Complaints about how ex-gay theories blame fathers for their sons’ homosexuality are, at best, misguided.

How fathers behave obviously can affect the sexual identity that their sons will develop when they become adults, and despite claims to the contrary, having a bad relationship with one’s father is one of the things that makes the development of male homosexuality more likely.

What the ex-gay movement has to say about fathers and homosexuality is much closer to the truth than anything that you or the other writers for this site have ever said. Rather than complain about them saying it, it would make better sense to thank them.

Past experience, of course, has shown me that the overwhelming majority of gay people are absolutely incapable of thinking about this issue in a rational or objective way. Typically, they know nothing about the relevant research, are not intelligent enough to understand the complexity of the issue, and most tellingly of all, do not possess the emotional ability to consider theories they appear to find upsetting fairly.

Eric in Oakland

Quo,

I find it very interesting how emotionally attached you are to this many times disproven (and very harmful)theory. If you reviewed the scientific evidence in a truly rational and objective manner, you would be forced to agree with the conclusion of the REPUTABLE psychologists and medical professionals. Instead you are blindly and irresponsibly defending the pseudoscience and blatant fabrications of crackpots like Nicolosi. Could it be that you ENJOY the prospect of psychological harm to gay persons and their families?

Chad

Honestly I’m amused that Quo managed to simultaneously complain about the writers of this site not being open-minded about his POV while at the same time flat-out stating that any gay person who disagrees with him must be stupid or childish. I can’t help but be reminded of Voltaire’s prayer.

And, as far as bigoted pseudo-scientific theories, I’d take “Your father was negligent and/or your mother was domineering” over “You must have been molested as a child” preferred by loonies like Orson Scott Card.

Lynn David

I posted this last night on Dr Warren Throckmortons “Speak out against Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009,” and he commented:

I appreciate the freedom to live according to conscience but using these wrong headed ideas is like trying to change a light bulb with a hammer.

So if the lightbulb is your everyday gay man….

Rick Brentlinger

Hey Quo-

What’s your position on Uganda’s “Kill or Imprison Gays” bill?

Are you for it or against it?

Do you think its fair to treat gays that way?

Emily K

Past experience, of course, has shown me that the overwhelming majority of gay people are absolutely incapable of thinking about this issue in a rational or objective way. Typically, they know nothing about the relevant research, are not intelligent enough to understand the complexity of the issue, and most tellingly of all, do not possess the emotional ability to consider theories they appear to find upsetting fairly.

That’s cuz all the gay people he comes into contact with (multiple times) are in the bathhouses he trolls when he gets sexually compulsive. What a lonely life.

Eric,

The “theory” has never been disproven, at least not in a carefully qualified version. The crude idea that having a bad relationship with his father automatically causes a boy to become gay is clearly wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t play some more limited and indirect role in the development of homosexuality.

Nicolosi is careful to say that his theory doesn’t necessarily explain all cases of homosexuality; I find him to be not a crackpopt, but a serious and credible writer, even though I wouldn’t necessarily agree with every detail of what he has said.

Rick and Emily,

I’m not going to respond to off-topic questions, or to irrelevant (and inaccurate) personal abuse.

William

No, Quo, youâ€™re right. The â€œtheoryâ€ has never been disproven. The theory that homosexuality is caused by having been a member of the other sex in a previous incarnation has never been disproven either. Nor has the â€œtheoryâ€ that the conjunction of the stars and planets at the time of oneâ€™s birth can cause homosexuality been disproven.

The crude idea that these things automatically cause a boy to become gay is probably wrong, but that doesnâ€™t mean that they canâ€™t play some more limited and indirect role in the development of homosexuality.

secularist10

William said:
“No, Quo, youâ€™re right. The ‘theory’ has never been disproven. The theory that homosexuality is caused by having been a member of the other sex in a previous incarnation has never been disproven either. Nor has the ‘theory’ that the conjunction of the stars and planets at the time of oneâ€™s birth can cause homosexuality been disproven.”

Excellent point, that one. In any case, I find it extraordinarily pathetic and intellectually chilling that Quo thinks homosexuality can be learned or unlearned. He/she ignores abundant anecdotal, theoretical and scientific evidence, and proclaims himself the truly “objective” one, and those who follow reason, logic, evidence and common sense the irrational ones.

If he undertook an earnest critique of his narrow-minded assumptions and presumptions, he might have a chance of seeing the light of truth.

Aaron

As Quo has pointed out, the different possible factors that are believed to be influential in causing homosexuality have expanded greatly with continuing research. At this point, Nicolosi has succeeded in creating a theory which is so vague that it applies to nearly all father/son relationships. If heterosexuals were analyzed in the same way I am convinced that the same percentage of their father/son relationships would be deemed dysfunctional and likely to cause homosexuality. It would make a fascinating study, to be sure.

One of the difficulties for Quo is how many of us ex-ex-gays went though the programs and had fantastic childhoods with strong male role-models and submissive mothers. Quo, of course, will probably never seriously consider these cases as he will not attempt to contact any of these people.

Will you prove me wrong, Quo? I know some if you want to talk.

Ben

I’m failing to see what’s newsworthy about this post. Some homosexual cheerleader went to a conference and “exposed”…what exactly? That he “felt” these people were being lied to?

Do you know who’s really being lied to? The general public; every single time some psuedo-scientist wannabe claims that “science” has proven that homosexuals are “just born that way”. It’s time to take a look at psychological factors, upbringing, etc.

I know that ex-gays scare you because they prove that people can control their bodies and that people’s sexual escapades are a behavior, not an identity. Behaviors can be changed. It’s kind of hard to make the comparison between homosexuals and blacks (as homosexuals INCESSENTALLY do) when there are in fact no conferences for ex-blacks. There are no conferences because there is no such thing! Okay, there’s Michael Jackson, but he was the exception that proved the rule.

But please don’t allow your fear and bigotry of ex-gays to cloud your judgement. Just because you can’t (or won’t) understand it doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening. People can change, thank goodness.

Burr

Yeah people can become celibate, woohoo. That’s the only success they can claim, and therefore they should be called what they really are, guilt into celibacy groups, not ex-gay groups.

So yes I agree, people can change behavior, but there’s been ZERO proof that they’ve completely changed their inner desires.

Chatline

Let the gay be gay.

Alex

“I know that ex-gays scare you because they prove that people can control their bodies and that peopleâ€™s sexual escapades are a behavior, not an identity. Behaviors can be changed.”

Ben,

Please name and cite one gay person who has ever said that homosexual behavior cannot be changed and that gay people cannot control their bodies. Thanks.

“Iâ€™m failing to see whatâ€™s newsworthy about this post.”

Given that you have frequently expressed your dislike for this blog and the “crap” that it publishes, I’m failing to see why you bother commenting here at all.

Burr

What’s said is our fly in the ointment here can’t even manage to change his behavior, yet continues to extoll theories that haven’t even remotely worked for him.

Ben

I bother to comment here because I’m not afraid of a debate. I could just go over to a sane website, but then I’d just be joining the chorus of sane people who don’t buy your propoganda.

As far as one “gay person” (I think you mean homosexual) who says that homosexual behavior cannot be changed…

How about nearly ever person who writes for this blog? Isn’t that canard to centerpiece of the homosexual argument?

For example, this blog would have you believe that “gays” “can’t serve in the military”, and that it’s somehow comparable to saying that blacks can’t serve in the military. Nonsense. The military has lots of rules about sex, many of which are routinely broken, but are nonetheless the rule. Adultery and oral sex, for axample, are prohibited. No one ever says “Adulterers are barred from military service!” No one ever says that barring adulterers from military service is like barring blacks from military service.

The underlying assumption is that homosexuality is WHO you are, not WHAT you do.

Alex

Ben,

If homosexuality is merely what someone does and not who they are, then would you say the same thing about heterosexuality? Do you identify as heterosexual only when you’re having sex with a woman? (I think someone asked you a form of this question a few weeks ago on a different post, but you ignored it… a strange move for someone who isn’t afraid of a debate.)

“As far as one ‘gay person’ (I think you mean homosexual) who says that homosexual behavior cannot be changedâ€¦How about nearly ever person who writes for this blog?”

Would you mind giving us a direct quote of a BTB writer saying that homosexual behavior cannot be changed? Sorry to be so demanding, but part of having a debate is being able to provide specific evidence for your claims, as opposed to the vague answer you just gave.

ddir

So Lesbians have bad relationships with their fathers? I have a straight brother, we were raised by the same two heterosexual parents. I’m male and gay, he isn’t gay. He has the same relationship with my father as I do. Give me a break with these pop-psycho-babble theories. Start loving each other and accepting who we are. $650 to “change’? Charlatans out to make a buck.

Emily K

What is sad is that Quo has failed to change both his orientation and his behavior. Usually the “successful ‘ex-gays'” can at least go celibate. He still trolls unseemly places for sex with men. He still has attractions to men and not women. Even he, with all his “enlightened knowledge” that “no gay person has the ability to comprehend” has been unable to change a thing – not even his behavior.

It’s true, it’s about attraction and not behavior. If it were only about behavior, straights could only call themselves straight if they were engaging in a sexual act.

As for the military, gays aren’t kicked out for sexual acts they commit; they are kicked out for having a partner that they write emails or letters to from home. For having a picture of themselves and their partner in their possession. And sometimes, by being bullied into admitting they’re gay.

Lymis

Seems to me that this is like so much of what passes for logic in the ex-gay dogma.

Of course the relationship a child has with his or her parents affects the way that their sexual behaviors develop. Parents who model bad or damaging relationships don’t give their kids the example of healthy relationships to follow – though, of course, they can learn to have them from other sources.

But it does not follow that primary sexual orientation is affected in any meaningful way by parental example. A gay kid with a great relationship with his dad will grow up to be a gay adult who had a great relationship with his dad.

Gay kids with distant or abusive relationships with their parents will grow up with the same sort of identity and self-esteem issues that any other kid who gets abused does.

As for changing homosexual behavior, another giant DUH that the ex-gay movement uses as a half truth. Of course you can change homosexual behavior – you can change unhealthy homosexual behavior into healthy homosexual behavior.

The most common testimony one hears from ex-gay men is how they were trapped in habits of shame, promiscuity, deceit, and inability to form healthy loving relationships. The answer isn’t to drop those behaviors in favor of sexual relationships with women, it is to learn to develop healthy homosexual relationships that DON’T center around promiscuity and deceit.

Duh.

William

â€œAs far as one â€œgay personâ€ (I think you mean homosexual) who says that homosexual behavior cannot be changedâ€¦

â€œHow about nearly ever [sic] person who writes for this blog? Isnâ€™t that canard to centerpiece [yer whaâ€™?] of the homosexual argument?â€ â€“ Ben

Stuff and nonsense. I canâ€™t recall a single person writing on here who has even remotely suggested that homosexual behaviour canâ€™t be changed. We all know perfectly well that it can, just as heterosexual behaviour can be. Someone who is homosexual can stop having homosexual sex, just as someone who is heterosexual can stop having heterosexual sex. Someone who is having wild, promiscuous sex (homosexual or heterosexual) can stop doing that and settle down in a relationship. Those are examples of change in behaviour, the possibility of which no-one has denied, but which is NOT the same as change in orientation.

I could decide that from this day forward I will never have gay sex again. Even if I succeeded in keeping that resolution, that wouldnâ€™t mean that my orientation had changed; Iâ€™d still be gay.

Does peopleâ€™s sexual orientation ever change? There are some cases of this happening, but they are few and far between, especially in males. There is no convincing evidence that anyone can MAKE it happen. Alan Chambersâ€™s declaration that â€œThe opposite of homosexuality isnâ€™t heterosexuality; itâ€™s holinessâ€, meaningless as it appears to me to be, nonetheless amounts to an implicit acknowledgement that there is no means of engineering such a change.

Ben in Oakland

Quo: for a man who claims he is super-scientific and super-rational (except when it comes to your favorite subject), you certainly are neither. Cause and effect, and correlation, are not always what they appear. you’ve talked about how your father didn’t like you because you were not the masculine ideal, or some such nonsense, and that this damaged your relationship with him and turned you queer.

you are so blinded by your self hatred that you can’t even see the truth when YOU say it. Here are some parallels from my own life.

I came out at 21, but my parents were never able to deal with it. I tried very hard for years to educate them and to talk to them, but they literally refused to listen or think or experience. I sent them some books, and they wouldn’t even tell me that they had received them! My father basically said that I would always be their son, but they were not really interested in my life. Well, what can you say to that?

Eventually, on reflection and therapy, I began to realize that this was not really something new for them. The issue wasn’t actually my being gay, the issue was our whole relationship. They gay thing was just a very convenient hook they could hang the relationship hat on so they wouldn’t have to take any responsibility for their behavior.

“Everything would be fine if you just weren’t queer.” Well, not really.

I also told them this. I am quoting from memory a letter I wrote 25 or 30 years ago.

“It is clear to me that your beliefs about homosexuality and what it means to be gay are far more important to you than your relationship with your son, and certainly more important than such things as compassion, fairness, and truth. You might think a little about that. Your attitude is never going to make me sorry that I am gay. It just makes me sorry that you are my parents.”

Harsh words, yes. but they really needed a slap upside the head. Unfortunately (or not), I didn’t have much connection with them after that. Not because I cut them off, but because I realized that all of the impetus for our relationship was coming from me, as it always had, not them. I merely stopped calling them when I was about 33.

I always knew I was gay from at least the age of 6, but I didn’t know what to call it. My Dad was OK– a good man with strong values and a good mind. He raised me properly, and I think I turned out well. But something was missing with him– I suspect it was what I call the gay Oedipus thing. My Dad recognized that I was very different from him (or entirely too similar to–take your pick), and so we were perhaps not as close as we could have been, though we certainly had a decent relationship.

When I was 13, I met the boy who became my best friend, and his family became my family. I would escape there every weekend that I could. What a world of difference in how I was perceived and treated! John’s father, Dick, became a second father to me, in many ways, the father I always wanted. His wife, Virginia, similarly became the mother I always wanted– loving and kind and supportive. They were the ones who showed up for my senior year choral concert– my own parents didn’t like classical music, and couldn’t be bothered. In all ways, Dick and Virginia were great parents to me, as they were with their own children.

And big surprise! dick told me many years later that he had always considered himself to be bisexual.

In other words, quo, I suspect that you don’t know your ass (cause) from your elbow (effect). It is more than likely that your poor relationship with your father is because you are gay, not the other way around.

Jason D

http://www.hilaryshepherd.com/rantsnraves/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/sammy_sosa-skin.jpg

“How about nearly ever person who writes for this blog? Isnâ€™t that canard to centerpiece of the homosexual argument?”

The only people who define us by our behavior (as if we all behaved the same) are those who don’t know the first thing about homosexuality.

So yes, big surprise, I could end my 3 year relationship with my partner and run off to never have sex with another man again.

But I’d still be gay.

Because gay isn’t a behavior. Homosexuality isn’t a behavior or a lifestyle. If you documented my life and the lives of Jim, Timothy, Daniel, and Gabriel, and compared them — you would find we live quite differently. Heck if you compared a few gay friends of mine, you’d find we have very little in common outside our sexual orientation.

Gay is about attraction. Just like straight is. No matter how much a straight man tries (and very few even want to try) they’re not going to suddenly find men attractive. They’re not going to read a book, or sit too close to Elton John, or listen to Lady Gaga long enough to suddenly become attracted to men.

Ben, what you don’t get is that race and sexuality are comparable. Michael Jackson isn’t the only person who’s skin doesn’t match his race. Sammy Sosa has whitened his skin as well. Here’s a before and after picture.

You’ll notice he’s wearing green contact lenses, covering up his normally brown eyes.

A little plastic surgery and a name change and you’d have no idea dear Sammy used to be Dominican. Here we see that “change” is possible.

Asians can even have their eyelids “westernized” http://www.nfb.ca/film/western-eyes/

So can we start the ex-minority movement? It appears everyone can be white now! Sure the genetics may not have changed, but so what? It’s only a matter of time before we have the gene therapy option of transforming the race of our children, too.

DevlinBach

I have come to the conclusion that there is a large part of society that “struggles” and suffers from what I call Sexual Dissociative Disorder (SDD). SDD is comprised of a conflict about ones sexuality in which one tries to dissociate from the realities of sex and sexuality in an attempt to resolve inner conflict. SDD is apparent in those that flog and/or disown their children and/or friends for being gay, those that relegate homosexuality to the “behavior” only category, those that call being gay and/or gay- sexual a “sin”, women who never have orgasms, to those gay and straight that go celibate due to ensuing sexual angst. SDD comes about from erroneous sexual information appearing true when technically, it is not. In other words, a poor mans education.

The Bible has three main players that lends strong framework to this disorder; Mary’s virgin birth, Jesus being celibate, and Leviticus calling gays an abomination deserving of death. All three sexual aspects of these “role models” lend credence to “righteous” sexual dysfunction complete with struggle and suffering. Women portraying Mary as sexually “perfect”, humans portraying a celibate Jesus until marriage, and gays being demoralized and killed by their counterparts portraying Leviticus. All contain unproven negative sexual fantasy being erroneous axioms falsely acting out in the physical realm, having strong affect on a heavy percentage of the human population. Those that “believe” run into mild to immense sexual conflict. Hence we have a world rife with sexual dysfunction akin to “Biblical proportions.” In the secular sense, a lack of education in schools including all three natural aspects of human sexuality, bi straight and gay, is their downfall.

The true healing of a Sexual Dissociative Disorder does not to do with following a sexually negative fantasy role model as a conflict escape method, but rather confronting head on, the role models and beliefs that bring the negative fantasy and suffering into being, and re-deciding if it is rational to retain. This is the only way one can truly be an affirming fully functional sexual human being. Dropping erroneous data does not mean that one may or may not have sex, one may even choose to be celibate. Full resolution does mean however, that there is a complete lack of conflict around ones sexuality and choices due to negative erroneous data having been dispelled, giving a clear artist’s canvas on which to draw.

Eventually this will be the conversation that all who suffer from SDD will need to address if true resolution is ever to come about individually and world wide. Until this happens, we will stay stuck in the drama of “acting out” the cherished painful wound of sexual misinformation.

Ben

Alex–

Jason D. just said:

“Because gay isnâ€™t a behavior. Homosexuality isnâ€™t a behavior or a lifestyle.”

Right. Born “gay”, always “gay”. The science isn’t there yet, but we’re trying In the meantime, just assume that homosexuality is roughly equivalent to the slant of your eye (very insulting to Asians, by the way).

So while you’re insisting that “no one” is saying the behavior can’t be changed, someone said about as much in the comments section. How do I know this? Because the person is saying that it isn’t a behavior at all! It’s just who you are.

I shall consider myself vindicated.

Comments like the ones above help prove my point that gay people, as a group, are incapable of thinking objectively about the development of homosexuality.

How many people following this thread have read any of Nicolosi’s books, or examined the books he has used as sources? I’m not seeing any evidence here that anyone, aside from me, has gone to the trouble of doing this.

Jason D

“So while youâ€™re insisting that â€œno oneâ€ is saying the behavior canâ€™t be changed, someone said about as much in the comments section.”

In about as much as I said my name was Adam Ant.

“How do I know this? Because the person is saying that it isnâ€™t a behavior at all! Itâ€™s just who you are.”

Exactly. Now you get it. Gay is not a behavior. Oh, wait, sarcasm. Hmm, you can use it, but can’t see it in my post?

Hmmm. Okay, moving on….

Okay, Ben, let’s dance. Let’s say you’re right, gay is a behavior. It’s just behavior.

So tell me, what is it? This gay behavior. Go on, Ben, tell me what the gay behavior is. Please, enlighten me, a gay man you’ve never met and no zero about. Please, tell me what my gay behavior is. Hell, since there are a lot of gay people who read this blog, tell us all what this gay behavior is that we all have and can’t seem to stop!

Go on, tell us.

Alex

“I shall consider myself vindicated.”

And I shall consider you evasive, Ben, because you ignored my other question: if homosexuality is merely what someone does and not who they are, then would you say the same thing about heterosexuality? Do you identify as heterosexual only when youâ€™re having sex with a woman?

Priya Lynn

Quo, Nicolosi is a quack and he based all his ideas on books by other quacks. There’s a reason why every major mental health organization utterly rejects what they say – they’re quacks.

Given your utter failure to control your behavior, let alone your orientation you know this to be true. Your continuous denial of reality isn’t going to fool anyone here, it just makes you look foolish at best and psychotic at worst.

Ben gay is a state of being same sex attracted. Gays remain gay whether they have gay sex, don’t have gay sex, or are a virgin. Refraining from gay sex doesn’t make a person “not gay” any more than a heterosexual’s refraining from sex makes them “not straight”. But of course you know this, its obvious – you’re just being a troll.

Priya Lynn

Reading Nicolosi to find out about the development of gayness is the equivalent of reading Harry Potter to find out about science.

Alan

Does anyone else wonder why someone like Quo would post here? I mean, what’s the point? No one’s going to agree with him, they’ve already rejected the arguments he presents. It’d be like a liberal Democrat showing up at a Tea Party.

Unless he’s a troll who wants to stir up trouble for entertainment…which by the length fo the comments thread seems to have been a success.

I’d suggest not arguing with him. You’re only giving him what he wants (attention) and (like most debates on the Internet) you’re not really covering any new ground.

Priya Lynn

Alan, I think you answered your own question – he’s a troll who wants to stir up trouble for entertainment. He’s miserable and his self esteem is battered from his total failure to change his orientation. He feels bad and envious of well-adjusted gay people and it makes him feel a little better to fantasize that he’s upsetting gay people and making them feel some small degree of the misery that predominates his life.

William

Quo, if youâ€™re so enamoured of the theories of people like Nicolosi, then, instead of coming on here and pointlessly belly-aching to the rest of us who donâ€™t believe in them and who arenâ€™t interested in having our natural sexuality tampered with anyway, why the hell donâ€™t you go to a â€œreparative therapistâ€ and get your unwanted same-sex attraction â€œfixedâ€? Then you can come back on here and tell us how you got on.

----

The reason people like Ben (not in Oakland) refuse to consider homosexuality as something innate or immutable is because if so, then the Bible would be wrong.(how could God condemn something he’s responsible for?) And if the smallest thing in the Bible is wrong, then Christianity collapses, Jesus’ message becomes null, western civilization turns upside-down and we return to eating babies and sacrificing virgins. Same goes for creationists, young-earthers, and people who believe those “apparitions” of Jesus or the Virgin Mary are real.

Alan,

Why do I comment here? I’m interested in seeing whether honest or informed discussion about questions such as what causes homosexuality is possible.

Unfortunately, there’s been a lot of evidence that it isn’t possible, at least around here, but I haven’t given up quite yet. If there is even a small chance that criticising the uninformed, ritual denunciation of Nicolosi and others like him will lead to a more careful examination of their theories, then I’ll continue doing so.

Priya Lynn

LOL, nice try Quo, its obvious the last thing you’re interested in is honesty and informed discussion. That facade isn’t going to cover the obviousness of your trollish intent.

RomeoandJoe

I suppose that heteros can be cured also…Give me $600 and I’ll do the curing.

Ray

Quo, how much do you get paid by these professional ex-gay outfits. I mean, you do work, right? I recall Dr. Dobson stating his “objective” view that homosexuality was caused by the lack of kick fights between father and son. Woe until the child whose father has no legs.

And your rendering of what is “objective” is the most subjective rendering I’ve ever witnessed. You need kick fight therapy Immediately!

Timothy Kincaid

I would remind our regular readers that it is best not to let individuals turn the threads into discussions about themselves.

They enjoy the attention. They like the feeling of being a martyr.

And you aren’t going to win an argument because they are baiting, not debating. The only opinion that matters is their own so no amount of logic or intellect or principled statements are going to make the slightest bit of difference.

Ultimately they’ll just declare that they consider themselves vindicated, and there’s nothing you can say to that.

Ben in Oakland

“Right. Born â€œgayâ€, always â€œgayâ€. The science isnâ€™t there yet, but weâ€™re trying In the meantime, just assume that homosexuality is roughly equivalent to the slant of your eye (very insulting to Asians, by the way). So while youâ€™re insisting that â€œno oneâ€ is saying the behavior canâ€™t be changed, someone said about as much in the comments section. How do I know this? Because the person is saying that it isnâ€™t a behavior at all! Itâ€™s just who you are. I shall consider myself vindicated.”

Oh, what fun! We get to have a debate with another homophobe who seems to know a great deal about homosexuality and, I assume, God’s opinion of same. My only regret about this is that he shares my name. Well, I should be vacuuming, according to my husband. But it’s a cold day and I’m not in the mood.

se here goes.

You may be considering yourself vindicated, but I don’t think you even begin to understand the real questions, though you have certainly, although implicitly, asked them several times in your posts here. The problem is, though you have some scientific knowledge and understanding, you know nothing about sociology and social psychology. (As an aside, I have to admit that, as a sociologist, I agree with Saul Alinksky. “A sociologist is a person you pay $30,00 to find the only whorehouse in town.” But it has its uses.)

Some years ago, a pattern of lights appeared on the wall of a church in the sierras. People came from miles around to see the Virgin Mary. (I quote: “It IS the virgin marry, and her message is world peace!!!” Unless it was St.. Mary of Camblesoup, whose message was whirled peas!) Anyway, the catholic bishop explained this vision of the Virgin Mary: “To those who believe, no explanation is necessary. to those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible.” It certainly covered all of HIS bases. It disappeared on a cloudy day, all predicted and proved quite easily by a mere scientist. A scientist who did not have an agenda. The bishop did, and his statement could have been turned back on him. I’m certain a number of people went right on believing that the scientist was wrong, and it WAS Miss VM.

In other words, you have an agenda, as do we. There is an implicit assumption in all of your statements and challenges- that gay is bad. (We have the complimentary, and far more complimentary, opposite assumption. But let’s talk about you.) There is a difference. Our agenda is reality based. Your reality is agenda based. Very much like that prominent faux-mo, Quo. That’s why he can suck d*ck on Tuesday and insist on Wednesday that he can change any time he wants to, if he wanted to.

Like Quo, and with maybe the same motivation, you want to pretend that science says that orientation does not exist, because then behavior is the only issue, and behavior can be changed. and you vehemently believe that it SHOULD be changed. And you don’t question it, whether because it is something that is none of your business that nonetheless offends you, or you have convinced yourself despite mountains of evidence that is is deleterious, or because you believe that your particular version of God is offended, or convinced, or otherwise agrees with you. Personal offense, fear, or your particular religious vision, pretty much sums it up.

The issues of orientation and behavior are indeed quite separate and quite real, as every Bible-quoting, heterosexual father of five, his pants around his ankles and his face buried in the crotch of Truckstop Daddy, will attest. Even such a luminary as Alan Chambers has more or less admitted that even with Jesus Christ playing quarterback to AC’s center, he is still as gay as the proverbially goosed. The opposite of homosexuality is holiness, indeed! Though even he can only lie to himself so much, apparently, he can lie to himself THAT much.

He’s not holy, he’s just another homo-hating-homo.

You’re a believer who is rational enough to try to use science to explain and justify your belief, but dishonest enough to pretend that you’re not doing precisely that. And of course, you are happy to accuse others of the same sin. As I’m fond of quoting Rochefoucauld, “Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue” It is not really the game we should be playing.

Again, Our agenda is reality based. Your reality is agenda based. So let’s start there.

To pretend that this what “science” says about homosexuality, choice, and change, is to make the same pretense that it is what the bible may or may not have had to say about what might, in a vague general sort of a way, be about homosexuality, at least as it was understood by illiterate desert tribes of 2000-3000 years ago. It is to pretend that don’tAskDon’tTell is about fitness to serve, military preparedness, unit cohesion. It is to pretend that gay men are a threat to children when the opposite is true, in order to defend the myth of heterosexuality superiority and the reality of heterosexual privilege.

It is to make the ridiculous sublime, like the idea that making gay people criminals or calling them threats to society somehow enhances and protects the hetero family, like our cock-sucking daddy above.

In other words, it is about what it is always about: how much the very existence of gay people bothers, offends, attracts, entices, frightens, and annoys some homophobic heterosexuals, homo-hating homos, wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t’s, conservatives, right-wing Christians, and village idiots .

Let’s look at what “science”, particularly psychiatric “science” had to say about homosexuality. There is a great book on the whole fiasco called “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry” by Ronald Bayer. It’s a great read. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Society removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. According to the right wing, this was under pressure from the all powerful HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA. According to reality– I was there– it was a different story.

The reason the APA dropped homosexuality from its list of mental disorders was that there was absolutely no evidence that being gay is a mental disorder. They had a definition of mental disorder, but to make it stick for gay people they had to ignore their own definition, and say that “Of course. Gay people are mentally disordered BY definition. Just not THIS definition.” It could not hold up to any kind of scientific scrutiny. The really homophobic psychiatrists, like Bieber and Soccarides (father of a gay son!!!), the ones who earned their living “curing” gay people, tried to force a referendum on the APA, but it also failed.

The whole procedure underlined that prejudice was really the defining issue, not science, not fact, not reason, and certainly not compassion, as is often the case on this particular issue. (Not surprisingly, religious reactions to gay people are very similar). First, a whole category of people is defined as mentally ill (or particularly sinful) with no scientific or experiential (or biblical) reason to do so, only a cultural and religious prejudice that requires some extra-ordinary justification so that it doesn’t look like hate-of-the-different. Then they have a vote, and presto-change-o, a whole category of people are “cured” overnight. (Or, as our Episcopalian, Lutheran, Old catholic, MSS, DOC, and UAHC, UCC, and a host of others have concluded, they have lost that je-ne-sais-quoi tastette of sin.) Then, the people who whose livelihoods depend on the the “mental illness” issue try to make another vote to make all of those people “sick” again. Clearly, not a matter of good science or good medicine– or good religion– just prejudice, and gay people for 100 years were its victims. You might call it the politics of diagnosis.

It has mostly happened in the legal area as well, except in those- back-water hell-holes that need a scapegoat for their failures as leaders and human beings. Even our country got rid of its last sodomy laws, because as even Clarence Thomas admitted, the laws were silly.

And its not surprising that the same thing is happening in the religion business as well. It’s the politics of Christian authenticity, but again, gay people are the victims. That’s why we keep having these votes on same-sex marriage.

Here’s the reality based agenda. Gay, like straight, is neither good nor bad, it just is. you can say that it is not an orientation, but reality– the reality of any self-respecting, self-loving gay person
— says something quite different. I don’t need a scientist to tell me that, just like I don’t need some boy-loving priest to tell me I’m not right with god. I have my whole life to tell me that I am a perfectly fine example of a human being, much better than, say, a Canadian archbishop with sanctimony on his lips and child porn on his laptop.

But here’s the difference between you and me. If I had the slightest information that there was actually anything wrong with being gay, that it was harmful or dangerous, that it was spiritually or intellectual unsatisfying, I would at least look at that information.

And I have. And I have yet to say that it ever boils down to anything more than homo-hatred, no matter what kind of religious or psuedo-scientific drag it might be in. Quo will always be my exemplar in this: his self hatred informs all of his beliefs and all of his facts. Remove his self hatred, and there is only air under all of his knowledge.

Richard Rush

Quo,

Why do you want to change your sexual orientation? Who are you trying to please, and why do you want to please them?

I’m now in my sixties, and have been with my wonderful partner for 28 years. Suppose I had wasted my life trying to change my orientation: I would still be gay, and I would be alone, or possibly in a loveless faux hetero marriage living a life of concealed desperation. Many of the people that I might have been trying to please are long gone from my life due to various circumstances.

Unless you feel compelled to hook up with women with some of the intensity that you feel luring you to gay bathhouses, then you are a homosexual. You need to accept that and stop trying to please a bunch of people who ultimately don’t matter.

You will never find a satisfying outcome by living your life to please bigots.

And you really need to stop viewing Nicolosi as a credible source of information. He is a charlatan whose livelihood depends on selling snake oil. He is so highly “invested” that he couldn’t give up his shtick, even if he wanted to, without losing his entire source of income. And then, who would ever hire him for anything.

Emily K

I agree with Timothy. Do not feed the trolls, pl0x. Let them have their fantasies of martyrdom and vindication. They don’t mean anything to us, so let’s just treat them like they are invisible.

Eddie89

Kudos to Ted Cox for having the guts to go public with his information!

Hopefully his act of courage will save many, many lives!

Bravo, Mr. Cox!!! Bravo!

Eric in Oakland

@ Tim K and Emily K,

I commend you on trying to prevent the trolls from derailing this thread, but I am not sure the comments addressed to the trolls are really examples of this.

The article that started this was about exposing the Ex-gay ministries and the harmful lies that they are telling to vulnerable people. While I am sure the trolls did not intend to contribute meaningfully, the responses are genuine expressions of what many of us would like to say to the likes of Nicolosi and Chambers.

Eric in Oakland

@Quo,

“Why do I comment here? Iâ€™m interested in seeing whether honest or informed discussion about questions such as what causes homosexuality is possible.”

It is not “honest or informed” to cherry pick data for anything that supports your prejudice while ignoring the mountains of evidence that contradict it. The claims of the anti-gay pseudoscientists, such as Nicolosi, have never been proven. All the truly objective research of the last 30 years has clearly contradicted his assertions. The APA and AMA unequivocally condemn his quackery. It is irresponsible (and frankly, evil) to nevertheless endorse his psychologically harmful programs.

@ Ben,

“Right. Born ‘gay’, always ‘gay’. The science isnâ€™t there yet, but weâ€™re trying In the meantime, just assume that homosexuality is roughly equivalent to the slant of your eye (very insulting to Asians, by the way).

The only people who would find the comparison insulting are bigots, Ben. Certainly the bigotry against gay people is at least as bad as against any other minority. The statistics on hate crimes proves this.

Eric in Oakland,

You are mistaken in claiming that “all the truly objective research of the last 30 years has clearly contradicted his [Nicolosi’s] assertions.”

Researchers Seymour Fisher and Roger Greenberg, for example, found in their review of studies on the family background of homosexuals that theories about distant fathers helping to cause homosexuality had at least some support.

I pointed that out months ago; the infantile responses I received from several of the people who regularly comment here helped reinforce my impression that too many gay people are emotionally immature in a way that perfectly fits the theory that homosexuality is a form of arrested development.

Timothy Kincaid commented,

“And you arenâ€™t going to win an argument because they are baiting, not debating. The only opinion that matters is their own so no amount of logic or intellect or principled statements are going to make the slightest bit of difference.”

I don’t think anyone who honestly reviewed the debates that happened here a few months ago would conclude that it was me who was guilty of “baiting.” The responses I received when I defended Nicolosi were both desperate and vicious, the kind of thing one expects to receive from religious fundamentalists if one is bold or foolish enough to criticise their religion.

Priya Lynn

Quo said “Researchers Seymour Fisher and Roger Greenberg, for example, found in their review of studies on the family background of homosexuals that theories about distant fathers helping to cause homosexuality had at least some support.”.

By some support, you mean none of any consequence. Distant fathers are commonplace and the fact that some gays had distant fathers doesn’t mean it caused them to be gay anymore than the fact that many gays grew up wearing shorts means that shorts makes people gay. The reason many gay sons have distant fathers is that their fathers sensed their efemininity and became distant – gay sons cause distant fathers and not vice versa.

If there was any solid proof that distant fathers caused gayness the anti-gays would never let us here the end of it, it’d be all over the news and at the heart of all their ant-gay crusades. The total absense of any such “proof” is a solid indication that it does not exist. Eric in Oakland is correct, all the truly objective research has contradicted Nicolosi. His “If you don’t hug your son another man will” kind of silliness is an icon of the vacuousness of his anti-gay ideas. If there was any truth to that idea Richard Cohen’s “holding therapy” where he hugs male clients would have been a resounding success and emulated around the world by all manner of anti-gay religionists.

The utter paucity of mainstream mental heal professionals agreeing with Nicolosi exists for a reason – he’s a quack.

Now spare us any of your claims that your own life demonstrates that distant fathers cause gay sons. You completely rejected the idea that your utter inability to choose your orientation means orientation is unchosen so it would be incredibly hypocritical of you to suggest your relationship with your father has anything to say about the causes of gayness.

Priya’s arguments are the same she made the last time I raised this issue; they were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Note the total lack of any reference to any study or scientific evidence in her post. Apparently she expects people to believe all that because she says it – see how similar it is to religious fundamentalism? There’s the same dogmatism, the same underlying need for emotional certainity, and the same indifference to evidence.

The only thing that she could produce in support of her you-can-always-tell-a-gay nonsense last time was a single pathetic study by Michael Bailey, which was worthless because of its tiny and non-representative sample (it was either seven or eight people; I forget which).

Lynn David

There have been a number of long-term, longitudinal studies of people come out in the last year and a half that have indeed shown that Nicolosi’s ideas are wrong. All you have to do is go over to Dr Throckmorton’s pages to find out for yourself.

Sol Invictus

Ignoring evidence is not productive. Former homosexuals have written books about changing sexual orientation who have nothing to do with any ex-gay organization. Here is an example of just one reference:

Coming Out Straight : Understanding and Healing Homosexuality (Hardcover)

Just one, one of many former homosexuals who wrote about their experiences and help from this doctor. If you wish to see more, Amazon.com has many you can read.

“Coming Out Straight is an insightful and inspired roadmap to recovery. How I wished for such a book in my many years of struggle with my own homosexual feelings. As my homosexual tendencies decended into pathologic addiction, depression and self-loathing, I was alone in a world were no one talked about this subject except to say, “acccept yourself, you can NEVER change.” (What a hopeless thing to tell someone.) Yet somehow through persistance, inner work and luck, I DID change. It was not easy nor quick. My voyage was almost parallel to Richard’s as described in his courageous and groundbreaking book. He dares to talk about Change in a loving way that defies demonization as homophobia”

Dr. Cohen himsef a former homosexual has evidently helped many who wish to change their orientation.

With dozens of testimonials, it seems this doctor certainly has evidence to back up his work and therapy.

Sol Invictus

This book is from one of the most respected sexual orientaton researchers in the country. It is evidence that can not be ignored, included is one review of the book:

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth
http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-Politics-Truth-Jef...

“Dr. Satinover is highly qualified to deal with this topic. He is a graduate of Harvard, MIT, University of Texas, and a former lecturer at Yale. He is a board certified MD in the private practice of psychiatry for over twenty years with extensive work with homosexuals. He is the recipient of many awards, including the Yale Symour L. Lustman Research award,and past William James lecturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard, among other qualifications. Gay activists, since the 60’s, have waged a relentless public relations campaign to convince Americans that they should overturn 4,000 years of Judeo-Christian moral standards that condemn homosexuality as unhealthy, a sin, and perversion of God’s design. The activist’s goals (and they are spelled out in such handbooks as “After the Ball, by Kirk and Madsen, 1989),are to convince the public that homosexuality is normal, innate or inherited, and irreversible; therefore gays are not subject to moral choice. Dr. Satinover analyses the extensive evidence to address these claims. Is homosexuality “normal?” Read the facts and decide for yourself. When you compare homosexual patterns with heterosexual patterns, it becomes clear that homosexuality is an addiction, as lethal or more so than alcoholism or drug addiction.”

Very powerful, compelling, scientific evidence.

There is no use trying to demonize the messenger, Santinover is highly qualified and experienced.

Rebut his facts with scientific support, not personal opinions.

DÃ©sirÃ©e

which scientific, peer-reviewed facts are those that you wish us to rebuff? all i see are personal anicdotes and still no actual *evidence* that orientation (as opposed to sexual behavior) can be or has been changed.

DÃ©sirÃ©e

BTW, the amazon link doesn’t lead anywhere

William

Quo, youâ€™ve obviously decided that Nicolosiâ€™s theories are correct, or probably so, and that your homosexuality needs â€œcorrectingâ€. O.K. Fine. So why bother to challenge us to disprove Nicolosiâ€™s theories? Like all unscientific theories they canâ€™t be either proved or disproved. What need is there for a debate with those who donâ€™t believe those theories, or who couldnâ€™t care less about them anyway, and who are perfectly satisfied with their sexuality? Itâ€™s surely no skin off your nose. Why donâ€™t you just go ahead and act on your beliefs?

R Holmes

I see Ben still refuses to tell us whether or not his heterosexuality is just a behaviour. Come on Ben – it’s not a difficult question. Stop being evasive.

grantdale

Sol,

You may, instead, want to think of some authors that don’t pop out of a cuckoo clock on the hour.

Satinover — here’s another of his books, written with the same fierce desire to avoid any facts to the contrary. It’s as equally mad as ‘Politics’. Is that what you mean by “highly qualified and experienced”?

Cohen — sorry, I cannot recommend any other book of his. Read one, you’ve read them all. They all appear to be the same. I hear he gives a fine tennis lesson though, so maybe give that a whirl if you’re bored. You can sit on the couch and hug and cry afterwards. BYO baby bottle.

—————–

ps everyone… leave Quo alone. He’s obviously had a difficult life, and needs to worship at the altar of San Nicolosi (of the Bleeding Heart for the Broken Family). It’s rude not to at least show some respect for his religious faith.

Sorry, did I say respect? I meant tolerance.

Alex

“Dr. Cohen himsef a former homosexual has evidently helped many who wish to change their orientation.”

Sol Invictus,

Richard Cohen is in no way, shape, or form a doctor. He has a master’s degree in counseling and was expelled from the ACA for multiple ethics violations. I believe the technical term for him is “quack.”

Alex

“I see Ben still refuses to tell us whether or not his heterosexuality is just a behaviour. Come on Ben â€“ itâ€™s not a difficult question. Stop being evasive.”

@ R Holmes,

Ben always seems to magically disappear as soon as the tough questions start coming.

R Holmes

Alex,

So you’re saying that I wrote magic words which made the anti-gay man disappear?

Now that trick could come in handy…

Jim Burroway

Sol Invictus,

There is nothing “Scientific” about Satinover’s work. The particular book you recommend is, as its title suggests, a political work, not a scientific one, brought to you by the “scientific” man who thinks the Bible Code is real.

As an example of what you consider Satinover’s “very powerful, compelling, scientific evidence,” he cites in his book the discredited “science” of Paul Cameron. That’s the guy who has been kicked out or condemned by the APA, the Nebraska APA, the American Sociological Association (twice), the Canadian PA, and most recently, the Eastern Psychological Association. He is an open admirer of how the Nazi’s “dealt with” the supposed problem of homosexuality, and has advocated similar “solutions” for this country. His work has been widely discredited, both on the facts and on his motivation.

This is what Satinover considers “powerful, compelling, scientific evidence.” Satinover’s work is as “scientific” as our satirical work, “The Heterosexual Agenda.” I should know. I’ve read Satinover’s book, and more importantly, I’ve looked at his footnotes. He uses exactly the same tactics I used to write my satire. But he doesn’t label his book as “satire,” does he? Like everything else he writes, this isn’t science. It’s politics, pure and simple. Ugly politics at that.

Priya Lynn

Quo, virtually every person has had the experience of seeing a given male and thinking “that person’s gay” and then later finding out they were correct. Its common sense that gayness is readily apparent in many males. Its simply dishonest of you to continue to deny the obvious, but that’s nothing new for you either. It may be religious faith for you that gayness in males can’t be detected, but you’re not going to fool the vast majority of people into agreeing with you. Your constant denial of the experiences of most people on the planet reveals your willful blindness to reality.

Eric in Oakland said â€œall the truly objective research of the last 30 years has clearly contradicted his [Nicolosi’s] assertions.â€

Quo replied “You are mistaken, researchers Seymour Fisher and Roger Greenberg, for example, found in their review of studies on the family background of homosexuals that theories about distant fathers helping to cause homosexuality had at least some support.”

Talk about dogmatic and absense of any evidence…When the best characterization a chronic embellisher like you will give to Fisher and Greenburg is the faint praise “some support” its pretty obvious even you think what they’ve provided is of no consequence. If they had anything substantial to support your laughable claim that Eric was mistaken they’d have published a peer reviewed paper in a reputable publication on distant fathers causing gayness. That neither they nor any other of your anti-gay heros have done so further demonstrates your total committment to dishonesty on this topic. Clearly there is no evidence whatsoever to support Nicolsi’s outdated idea that distant fathers cause gay sons.

William

I take it all back. Quo has convinced me. The scales have fallen from my eyes. Iâ€™ve finally identified the reason why Iâ€™m gay. Iâ€™m amazed, in fact, that it has taken so long for the truth to penetrate my thick skull, and Iâ€™m at a loss to understand why Iâ€™ve been resisting it so stubbornly, but one thing I know: that whereas I was blind, now I see. It was my parents who were responsible, and my father in particular. No question about it.

This is scarcely credible, but my dad actually used to go off to work every morning after breakfast and wouldnâ€™t come home until about six oâ€™clock in the evening. Away all day! Well, I mean to say, I ask you.

No wonder that Iâ€™m gay. It was the same for all my brothers, so God only knows why they arenâ€™t gay too.

My sisterâ€™s husband could be my dad, mark II. Same bloody old story all over again. Out every day from after breakfast till supper time, earning a living. Only in the house evenings and weekends. Parents just donâ€™t reflect on how this sort of thing may impact on their childrenâ€™s sexual orientation, do they? So itâ€™s hardly surprising that one of their sons has turned out to be gay, is it? What else could you expect? (Why the other one is straight just beats me.) That proves the whole theory up to the hilt. Need I say more?

Timothy Kincaid

Sol Invictus,

I have a recommendation on how to comment without looking like a raging loon: do a search.

For example, had you done a search on this site for Richard Cohen, you’d already know that Cohen is, well, a bit peculiar.

You’d know that he has methods, including cuddling and beating a pillow with a tennis racquet, which have been subjected to a great deal of mockery. And you would know that his own marriage was an arranged “Mooney mass wedding”. You would have flinched at his wildly inappropriate children’s book. You would be familiar with his rather strange religious quest for meaning. You would have laughed about Cohen’s “spontaneous” testimonials. And you’d know that he has been banished by all ex-gay groups other than his own.

In short, you would not have produced Cohen as a “doctor [who] certainly has evidence to back up his work and therapy”. And we would not have laughed at you.

Similarly, had you searched “Jeffrey Satinover”, you’d have known all that Jim lists above. And again, we wouldn’t have pitied you for thinking you were playing a trump card only to find out that you had the weakest hand.

In short, Sol, we are not fools. And we are not ignorant.

Unlike anti-gay sites, we are well informed here at BTB. There is very little in the way of “facts” or “information” that we have not already seen, inspected, and analyzed.

So before you confidently “inform” us of information that you are sure will prove us wrong once and for all, you may want to spend a few moments making sure that you aren’t just going to, once again, seem like an ignorant, foolish, uninformed anti-gay activist. It doesn’t advance your cause at all.

Priya,

You wrote,

“When the best characterization a chronic embellisher like you will give to Fisher and Greenburg is the faint praise ‘some support’ its pretty obvious even you think what theyâ€™ve provided is of no consequence.”

Obvious to whom? To people like you, who feel the need to make sweeping claims on the basis of minimal or non-existent evidence and react with shrill displeasure when anyone dares to disagree with them? Unlike you, I don’t feel any need to present my claims in an absolute or unqualified way. That doesn’t mean that I think they’re of no consequence; it means I have a sufficently good emotional balance that I don’t need to pretend that everything is completely certain.

“If they had anything substantial to support your laughable claim that Eric was mistaken theyâ€™d have published a peer reviewed paper in a reputable publication on distant fathers causing gayness.”

That comment is interesting, in that it shows that you have no idea what the point of Fisher and Greenberg’s work was. It was ro review published literature and studies conducted by other people.

Lynn David,

Where, exactly, on Throckmorton’s site is this evidence that Nicolosi is wrong? Could you provide a link?

Timothy,

If, as you assert, you and the other writers for Box Turtle Bulletin are not fools and are not ignorant, then could you perhaps see your way to reviewing Fisher and Greenberg’s work? It is one of the main sources used by Nicolosi to show that his work has scientific support, so it is of some importance whether it is credible or not. You’ve never attempted to discuss it seriously, as far as I can see.

Priya Lynn

Quo, once again the fact is that they never published a peer reviewed paper in a respectable journal providing evidence that distant fathers cause gayness. They didn’t because they didn’t have any evidence to support this and neither do any of your anti-gay heroes. Once again you have absolutely no evidence to support your claims.

Many, many studies have been done all of which point to biological factors in the development of gayness. Any one by themselves may be debatable, but taken as a whole they demonstrate a trend that is extremely substantial and that is why none of the major mental health organziations takes the position that parental relationships cause gayness. Once again you glom onto fringe thinkers and ignore what the mainstream says.

Regarding the common sense knowledge that gay sons cause distant fathers:

Someone like you who makes the idiotic statment that there is no evidence people can’t use willpower to change genetic features is obligated by his own “logic” to provide evidence that people can’t tell who’s gay by their mannerisms and so forth. You have no evidence that people can’t do this, therefore by the “logic” you’ve previously used on this forum you’re in no position to be saying its “nonsense” that people can tell who’s gay by observing them.

Priya Lynn

Once again, Quo expects people to think its nonsense that gays can be distinguished by observation just because he says so. He has no evidence whatsoever to back up his assertion and he is guilty of the very dogmatism he accuses me of.

The point of Fisher and Greenberg’s research was to review studies of various psychoanalytic theories conducted by other people over the years, to see how credible or well supported they were (they were concerned with a wide of range of different theories, by the way, not only theories about homosexuality).

I’m sorry that Priya can’t understand that this makes her complaints about Fisher and Greenberg not publishing evidence for parenting being relevant to the development of homosexuality in respectable journals irrelevant, but I suppose it does at least make clear her total ignorance of what she is dismissing (which is not only Fisher and Greenberg in particular, but empirical studies of Freudian theories more generally).

Whether Timothy Kincaid or Jim Burroway or one of the other Box Turtle writers is going to try to evaluate such studies on a more adult level remains to be seen. I’m not too hopeful. After all, Fisher and Greenberg are probably too respectable and convincing, and it’s much safer and more convenient for Kincaid and Burroway to restrict their efforts to debunking obvious nuts like Cameron or joke therapists like Cohen.

Priya Lynn

Quo, you can spin all you like, but the fact remains that Fisher and Greenburg weren’t remotely respectable enough to publish a peer reviewed paper in a respectable journal documenting any evidence that distant fathers cause gay sons and neither were any of your anti-gay heroes because there is no such evidence. You’re constantly confusing correlation with causation and rationally we all know that gay sons cause distant fathers and not vice versa.

Timothy Kincaid

Quo,

Which specific claims of Fisher and Greenberg do you wish analyzed? Please provide the claim, the date, and the source.

Richard Rush

Perhaps I’m going way out on a loony limb here, but is it possible that Quo is nowhere near who he seems to be? While he seems to be just a pathetically twisted self-loathing homosexual, I’m beginning to wonder if he could actually be Joseph Nicolosi. He certainly seems eager to cite and defend Nicolosi.

And, are Quo, quo, quo III, and quo mark II the same commenter? They seem to be, based on some cursory reading.

I’ll post some more about Fisher and Greenberg’s work tomorrow or the day after. Whether anyone can offer relevant, adult criticisms of it rather than the juvenile, irrelevant drivel that has been offered so far we will see.

Priya Lynn

Richard Quo, quo, quo III, quo mark II and, as he appeared on Wayne Besen’s blog, Kwo, are all the same person. This is made apparent by the same absurd arguments and obsession over the non-existent Fisher and Greenburg “evidence” that distant fathers cause gay sons.

Studies show that males are more likely to be gay the more older brothers they have, women with same chromosone deactivation are more likely to have gay sons, gayness is correlated with hair whorls, finger length, finger print patterns, gay men respond to pheremones like straight women, gay men and straight women have similar mental abilities while lesbians and straight men have similar mental abilities, brain structures related to sexuality are similar in size in gay men and straight women and similar in lesbians and straight men.

Taken apart none of these may provide conclusive proof that gayness is biologically determined, but taken together they paint a picture of the biology of gayness that is extremely hard to refute. Combine this with the fact that the tired old theory of distant fathers causing gay sons has no evidence to support it whatsoever, it is no surprise that every major mental health association and all reputable social scientists reject that idea as a substantial contributor to gays’ sexual orientation.

Timothy Kincaid

Quo,

I didn’t invite you to post content. I asked what it was that you want vetted. As I said, please provide the claim, the date, and the source for specific claims of Fisher and Greenberg.

Priya Lynn

Oh, yes, and gayness is also correlated with handedness, and probably several other things I’ve forgotten about.

Richard Rush

Priya Lynn wrote:

Oh, yes, and gayness is also correlated with handedness, and probably several other things Iâ€™ve forgotten about.

Don’t forget that gayness is also correlated with higher rates of counterclockwise hair whorl.

I’m over 60 and just recently discovered that my hair whorl is counterclockwise (I just never thought about it before). I had been indoctrinated as a child to part my hair on the left side, which works well with clockwise whorl. Now I part it on the right side, and it just falls into place naturally. Its actually quite amazing. I realize now that I’ve been fighting against my true orientation all these years.

Priya Lynn

And eyeblink rates and the startle response.

Eric