Oh I agree with you completely on this point. I do think though that men are more inclined to persue a straight relationship/marriage because it is expected they will do this (wife/children). Typically you hear the man say he was ashamed and thought it was a phase/didn't want anyone to know/etc.

I know that (well I think) my dad wouldn't be ashamed if I was gay. But he would be disapointed. Now my grandfather and grandmother on teh other hand would be ashamed and disown me if I were gay.

Ditto!

You are exaggerating his statement and can't back up your own comments with "science." He did not say that at all. He stated that he had clients who believed they might be homosexual because they had had a pleasurable homosexual experience in childhood. But thats ok if you don't agree with him. What matters is that Dr Harley is able to save marriages and change sexual orientiations.


Actually that has never been proven and even in the article you posted it said: "Park said he now wants to research whether this finding has any relevance for humans." The homosexual community has made this claim for the last 25 years, in my awareness, and have yet to "prove it." You say that there is such a gene, and then state that it has not been discovered.... hmmmmmmm How do you know this if it has not been discovered? Isn't that wishful thinking rather than "science?"

I agree. But we also have communities, and I have lived in them, where homosexuality is celebrated and encouraged. They are treated like special citizens. What is it they say, "be loud and proud!!" And they are. So there would great incentive to swing to the other side. My point is that it is not rational to say that if you swing on the homo side you are a homosexual and can't change, but the reverse is somehow not true.

Yeah but you also lived through a time when they thought it was for some reason okay to let women vote, start wearing shoes, and leave the kitchen!

bwahahahahah

shaddup!!

That's an interesting perspective ... to me, I would seek to erase any physical desires for anyone (man, woman, child, muppet, whatever) else other than my spouse. I would seek to reinforce desires for my wife and diminish any other competing desires. That's part of my agreement to forsake all others.

Which is it? If they are closer to discovering it every day, then they have not discovered it.


How about a reference to a published study in a journal rather than Fox news? Not to offend anyone, but I'm not personally comfortable with accepting Fox news as a scientific source.

Has anyone actually published a study on that question? If no studies have been published, then there certainly wouldn't be any evidence one way or the other.

Have you reviewed the scientific literature on the subject?

I'm with you, kilted; I'd be real interested in seeing Dr. Harley's data on this. There are claims, but to my knowledge none of what he's got on this has been published as a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or even self-published. I doubt that would ever happen because I assume the data is highly confidential.

Anyway, I would say that for someone who is interested in learning to suppress a same-sex attraction, it seems like giving Dr. Harley's approach might well be worth it. If it doesn't really work, then it doesn't really work, but what would they have to lose?

Pool, R. (1993). Evidence for homosexuality gene. Science (New York, N.Y.), 261(5119), 291-292.

From the Fox News article, link provided;

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/11/62

Another article;


Turner, W. J. (1995). Homosexuality, type 1: An Xq28 phenomenon. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24(2), 109.

HOWEVER, the process which the "homosexuality gene" was hypothesized have been under scrutiny for candidate selection and possible outside influence.


That's what I found in 5 minutes of using an academic database search.

As a funny side note, the gene "identified" is referred to as the FucM gene.

Thanks, Hold, for taking it up a notch to science. That provides us a real basis for evaluating the claim.

Leaving out the moral questions, my simplistic engineer mind sees sexual orientation no different than being attracted to other physical attributes. I am attracted to women with red hair.

But I don't act on every attraction. My wife would have a fit. So I can control my behavior and not act on every visually appealing woman.

I might find someone with jet black hair attractive as well. Again, since I love my wife, I don't act on that.

I don't see homosexuality as anymore than being attracted to certain physical or even personality traits. Some choose to act on their attractions.

If I were in "the market" I think I could find a blonde attractive, so I don't think I'm "hard wired" to like red or black hair. I've simply chosen or allowed myself to find such women physically attractive.

I suspect that those who find the same sex attractive have a lot of that same thing going on. It's my belief that it's more nurture than nature that drives same sex attractions. Which means, if someone wants to, they can change their thinking to find others attractive.

It's a behavior. Just as Dr Harley teaches behaviors to help folks have a better marriage, folks can learn behaviors to find same-sex or opposite-sex individuals attractive.

I'm not saying it's easy. But I really don't buy that it's a genetic based forgone conclusion. Just as I don't think my finding redheads attractive is a result of my genetics.

Actually the homosexual community does not want the gene to be discovered because if it is then there can be a screening for it and Christians can and many will abort the gay fetuses. And did you know that almost all pharmaceutical drugs and modern medical inventions are based on discoveries in vivisection? Many times human models are NEVER used to assess the validity of these discoveries. Now I might agree with you that your ideal of what the "science" is (human trials) is better, but it's not the way modern medicine works.

The other point, which has already been raised is that heterosexuals choose to act or not act on their desires. Getting married doesn't do something magical that negates that I find certain physical and personality traits attractive.

What changes is MY thinking. I'm married, I made a promise, a vow to my wife. I have a family. No matter how many hot redheads throw themselves at me, seeking the famous family baked beans recipe, I will not act on those advances and betray my wife and family.

It takes more than just thinking that thought. One has to guard their marriage. But if it can be done successfully by heterosexuals, then why would we doubt that someone who finds someone of the same sex attractive can do the same and not act on those attractions?

Oh good God NO! Sexuality makes us HUMAN, it's a perfectly natural thing! It's part of who I *am* which is what he signed up for. How I choose to act on that is one thing, as I have chosen to be monogamous, but the entire concept of eradicating a certain sexuality is just total nonsense, you cannot change someone's sexual orientation! No sooner could I stop being bisexual because I married a man and vowed to be monogamous, then I could stop knowing how to ride a bicycle or pour a glass because he'd rather I didn't do that either :p I can promise not to do any of those things if he doesn't want me to, but it doesn't change the programming. Sexuality even moreso. You just flat out cannot change it. You can hide it, camoflauge it, fake it- but your sexuality does NOT just "change". It's impossible.

Nobody would demand one because there is no debate that being straight is natural to the straight community, and gay people don't make the ridiculous assumption that there is something 'wrong' with straight people (the way heterosexuals think of homosexuals). I'm telling you, decades from now, the sooner the better, people who think of homosexuals as deviants are going to be considered just as bad as racist bigots. More and more people in the United States are waking up to the fact that homosexuality has been around for eons, is never going away, and is for whatever reason, very much natural and part of who someone is from birth, and they're accepting it. Amen for that!

The question many are asking here is why do folks consider attraction to a particular gender immutable, while most would agree we can change what physical or personality traits we find attractive?

It's not consistent. If what I found attractive when I was a teen is not the same as what I find attractive approaching 50, then why wouldn't that apply to what gender I find attractive?

I tend to believe it's a behavior, not a foregone conclusion.

There are many things that have been around for eons. Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't make it good or acceptable.

As one who has faith, I tend to believe what the scriptures say. However, I don't think that those who practice homosexuality are any more of a sinner than anyone else.

So I can believe something is wrong, that something is not-normal (is that any less offensive than deviant?) and still NOT be bigoted because I know that we are ALL sinners. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike are sinners. So I'm neither better nor worse when it comes to any alleged moral high ground.

So don't be tempted to use faulty logic and assume that those who believe in engaging in homosexual acts is sinful are saying they don't sin.

Most I know who hold this belief are fully aware that they too are sinners, and not morally superior.

"Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't make it good or acceptable"- no matter what you wrote after this, that line proves your discrimination. There are a lot of things in the Bible that we know now are wrong- it condones beating and stoning women, slavery, all kinds of horrible acts. Most sensible modern day christians remove the hatred and violence promoted in the Bible and follow the positive affirmations instead. I would urge you to do the same.