Latest Display of ‘Tolerance’ From Homosexual Activists

Bob

I do not know if you will come back to this site and therefore get this message. If you do, I was wondering if there was a way we could continue our dialogue privately outside of this forum. As I said previously I have had enjoyed the back and forth, and whilst your responses have often left me bemused, your final response led me to believe I could ask some questions of you and get an honest (if not biased lol) response. I was hoping to explore a couple of issues with you about your religious beliefs. I understand if that may be a very personal issue and you may not wish to enter into a dialogue and I respect that, however in my never ending quest to explore the evidence, weigh it, and draw my own conclusions, I would appreciate the opportunity to converse with someone of your background...at a safe distance lol.

If you respond in the positive, I will supply you with an e-mail address.

Regards

Prana, I sent you an email a couple of days ago using the hotmail address you entered when making your last comment. Did you get the email? If not, please use the "Contact" form available from the "About Dakota Voice" page and I'll contact you from there.

Bob

I have enjoyed our back and forth and you have made me laugh with your attempts to justify your position e.g. I talk about mother nature, which you describe as an "impersonal and non-existent" force and then tell me it is more likely that a god, which you can not to prove the existence of, created people for reproduction...can you see the irony in that statement...I couldn't write this stuff if I tried.

As for the nurture of mother and father being responsible for the statistically significant increase in male siblings who have more older male siblings (not eloquently put, but you know what I mean)...you have got to be kidding...or as you say no dice.....there is just absolutely no scientific basis for that comment...study the maths (a science it is much harder to dispute I would suggest). The statistical probabilities are so high as to virtually negate nurture factors.

Your arguing against a mass of data and research from literally thousands of sources, addressing many different strands of why there is spectrum of human sexuality and its probable causal factors, based on flawed emotional and religous arguments, often using a LITERAL interpretation of a book which has very little LITERAL relevance to the 21st century. They just do not stand up to scrutiny. I find it disheartening that a clearly intelligent man is so blinded as to not be able to think for himself.

Just to clarify one point on your bible, and the reason I highlighted the word literal - I do believe it contains some very powerful themes by which to live your life, and I try to live up to some of them, such as love thy neighbour as you would yourself, judge not lest you be judged yourself, try and turn the other cheek, and I always try to be a "good samaritan" when I can. I am also an educated man, with an honours degree in Law, and Masters in Criminology, and I am a senior police officer in the UK, perhaps that is why I like to weigh the evidence from all sides and come to my own conclusions. Something sadly a lot of people are not prepared to do, relying instead on an increasingly irrelevant dogmatic approach to their religion which seeks to stigmatise, subjugate and treat a significant number of people as bad and defective based upon how they were born. So sad that what could be a truly beautiful religion, is corrupted (as it has been for many years) to satisfy those who need to feel superior to others.

I thank you for your blessing, but after years of "soul" searching, I am very happy with my lot, having released myself from a mere existance. I now fully participate in life as the person that I truly am, and not some facsimilie created to protect me from prejudice or satisfy other peoples definition of right and wrong. I am now able to experience the joy of loving another human being and being loved back for who I am. I consider myself a good person, and the vast majority of my friends, colleagues and family agree. I suppose that is why I take the time to debate these types of issues, I am convinced that by continuing to present the case, hopefully in a fairly considerate, logical and respectful manner, I may change just one persons mind, and I seek not to do that by being a "militant homosexual extremist", but just by being myself and leading by example, and speaking what I see as the truth.

Kind regards

I'm sorry that you've closed your mind off to any significant opportunity that the truth might penetrate, but at least I've tried, and fortunately that's all God holds me accountable for.

Your bias against reason comes out quite clear in your rejection of the behavioral studies which have shown various nurturing tendencies of parents (especially on younger boys) can strongly affect their self-perception and their perception of the proper role of male-female relationships (thanks for seeing through my poorly-worded response--I was dead tired when I wrote it, and did a less than stellar job of expressing my thoughts). But this research is at a minimum as plausible and verifiable as the idea that hormonal levels, etc. in the womb could affect children born later in succession.

I realize you're not inclined at this time to give the Bible a second look, but I would encourage you to at some point give it an honest as-objective-as-possible re-examination as possible. The vast majority of the moral lessons outlined in it are just as applicable today as they were 2,000-3,000 years ago; even the few that were directly tied to cultural practices of long ago still have useful principles to teach us today.

And it's not about feeling superior to anyone; anyone who truly understands the basic tenets God is trying to teach us through the Bible KNOWS they are not superior; they've just found a life-changing truth that God says all of his children should know about.

I'm pleased to hear you're in law enforcement in the UK. I was stationed at RAF Alconbury near Huntingdon from 1987-1990 in the USAF and was a law enforcement specialist. I got to know a number of MOD police during those years there, at RAF Molesworth, and at RAF Sculthorpe near Fakenham. (And for what it's worth, one of my favorite shows was "The Bill") Had some great times and some great laughs with those MOD cops! If there's any single time in my life in the past that I think of--other than great times with my wife and children--it's those three years in England.

We haven't agreed on much, prana, but you've been one of the more reasonable people I've discussed this issue with, and that has made it pleasurable. I can say it's been even more pleasurable, now that I know you're from my old line of work, and live in a country from which I have such treasured memories.

Best regards to you!

Bob

I genuinely was not going to return to this site to see your response, because I felt that neither of us would change each others minds. I still find some of your comments so preposterous that they do not justify a response. However I wish you well with your misguided views, and hope that they continue to diminish as the human race grows up and faces the challenges ahead. I want to leave you with a few last thoughts....what if homosexuality did serve some biological function?

What if it was originally mother natures way of population control?

You should look at the research on the statistical significance of the number of older male siblings on whether the younger male child is gay. That is to say, the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay, all to do with the hormones apparantly !!

Have you also ever considered the possibility that higher suicide rates, self-harm, alcoholism and drug misuse amongst gay people, usually men, may be the symptom of societal rejection, feelings of self loathing and poor self esteem, fostered by a large number of people who think like you do. Perhaps, as the human race matures, the health of the gay population will improve, when it no longer carries the stigma, prejudice and bigotry I see all around me today.

PS....both the homosexual and heterosexual life ultimately leads to death...unless of course you are going to tell me you not only speak on behalf of your god, but that you are immortal as well !!

As for the misery bit...sorry to disappoint you, but genuinley couldn't be happier.

I will finish off with the words of the famous Irish comedian, Dave Allen who used to say, "good night and may your god go with you"

You're giving "mother nature" (an impersonal and non-existent force) a lot of credit for design. It seems a lot more likely that someone like God would create human sexuality to reproduce. Even most evolutionary arguments consider reproduction a positive thing, so even an impersonal force trying to design a negative biological function seems pretty far-fetched...and pretty silly. I think the lengths you're going to in order to manufacture some positive aspect of homosexual behavior--however slight and improbably--should tell you something about your state of mind.

I am aware of the "research" on older male siblings where the younger child displays homosexual tendencies. These are as easily--more easily, actually--explained by nurturing behaviors by the mother and also the father. Sorry, no dice here, either.

Yes, I've considered (as have many other people) the possibility that the suicides and substance abuse prevalent in the homosexual community could be a symptom of societal rejection. However, these factors are still seen even in areas here in the States and overseas where homosexual behavior has been highly accepted for a number of years. Still no dice. Have you considered the very real phenomenon (displayed in other behavioral patterns as well) that when people engage in a behavior which their conscience tells them is wrong, depression usually results? This is a phenomenon that is very common to immoral behaviors, and one that tends to spiral quite deeply.

True, both homosexuals and heterosexuals die eventually, but it is a documented fact that homosexuals on average die about 20 years younger than heterosexuals--and with the disease and other health factors associated, it's not a wonder.

I thought I was pretty happy when I was a drunk...but I was very busy lying to myself. Only in the years since I left it behind have I been able to admit that I was profoundly miserable.

I hope you can reach a stage where you can be honest with yourself--about homosexual behavior and a lot of other things. I hope you reach that stage before it's eternally too late, and I hope it's soon.

Praying God's blessing and intervention on your life...

As I suspected Bob your heart and mind are closed, and no matter what evidence I presented, or questions I raise about the serious flaws in your position, you are too blinded by a faith based doctrine to accept any other viewpoint than that of a hevily edited and mistranslated book written between 1500 and 2000 years ago.

Your comparison to your alcoholism is a little condescending, since you appear to compare a usually destructive charcter trait, on which you can speak with great authority, having personally exprienced it, with something that you have not personally experienced, I assume, which is same-sex attraction, and yet you state with the same certainty that it is a destructive state of being. Alcoholism certainly can be, I reject that same sex attraction is per se, and on that I do speak from personal experience.

The other point is, that I agree with you....no gay "gene" has ever been discovered, nor do I think they ever will, since the most recent research, as we gain insight into sexual orientation, points to the impact of hormones during pregnancy being a major factor. But even if that was proved to be the case you would still consider that a birth defect judging by your comments below.

Conservative estimates of the number of people who identify as homosexual or bi-sexual run at about 3% of the population. Less conservative estimates run to as high as 10%. I do not know which figure is correct, but we could be talking of between 200 and 600 million people worldwide, that you are saying have a birth defect and should in some way be consider less for that.

Those defective people include W.H Auden, the poet, Stephen Sondheim, Bruce Heyes, Olympic Gold Medallist, Barney Frank US Congressman, and Johanna Sigurdardottir, the firstly open gay leader of a country, having just been elected as Prime Minister of Finland....I chose the less well known gays rather than trotting out the usual examples, and you know I could go onlisting literally hundreds of defects who have had a positive impact on the world, including the arts, theatre, film, music, politics, philosophy and yes even religion.

I think it was Einstein who said something like " A religion with no room for doubt is not a religion, but a superstition". Clearly your faith has no room for doubt, nor for rational discussion, so I wish you well with your life, thanks for your considered response, and I hope that in the future when you look back and realise how wrong you have been, and how you have considered between 200 and 600 million of your human brothers and sisters to be bad, sick and defective indivduals based upon how they were born, you will hang your head in shame.

I'm afraid it's your mind that is closed, prana. I've examined a great deal of evidence, both real and fallacious, from a variety of angles including moral, scientific, biological, and clinical. They all point to the same conclusion: homosexual behavior is abnormal, unnatural, unhealthy and immoral.

That you refuse to accept the only rational conclusion from this mountain of comprehensive evidence is an indictment of your own closed mind. How profoundly sad.

I'm guessing that your reference to "a hevily edited and mistranslated book written between 1500 and 2000 years ago" is meant to indicate the Bible. If so, your statement itself reveals your extreme state of ignorance, not only about the issue of homosexual behavior but about that document itself. You would do yourself a tremendous favor to investigate it firsthand and determine its reliability.

Were you to do so, you would find that the youngest part of the Bible was written over 1,900 years ago and the oldest was a minimum of 3,000 years ago. You would also find that it is without a doubt the most meticulously transcribed and copied document in human history (one set of transcribers were so meticulous that they would copy one sentence, then compare the new to the old by counting the number of words in the sentence, then the number of characters in each sentence). There are also more ancient copies of the Bible than there are for just about any of the classics. You will not find a more reliable ancient document in existence.

You may find the comparison between alcoholism and homosexual behavior "condescending," but your emotional reaction to it does not diminish the relationship. Both bring temporary pleasure to those who practice them, both are addictive behaviors, and both are self-destructive. I don't need to do meth to accept as reliable the very compelling evidence of both its addictive and self-destructive properties, just as not everyone who recognizes this about alcoholism needs to experience alcoholism. The same is true of homosexual behavior.

As to the number of homosexuals in the population, a survey conducted about a year ago by Hunter College and commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign (a very pro-homosexual group) put the percentage at 2.9%.

I am not stating in any way, shape, form or fashion what is a reasonable percentage for a birth defect; birth defect rates are what they are. But again, you are implying homosexual behavior has a genetic cause--something definitely not in evidence. The best evidence points toward environmental causes brought on during the formative years of child development.

The list of accomplished homosexuals is also irrelevant on a number of levels. Even if homosexual behavior was caused by a genetic birth defect, many people with real, legitimate birth defects have gone on to accomplish great things (Stevie Wonder was born blind, as was my wife who has obtained a master's degree and is quite a good teacher and pianist). Furthermore, many people with moral flaws have also accomplished great things; in fact, if moral perfection were the standard for accomplishment, no one would ever accomplish anything, since all human beings are morally flawed.

But homosexual behavior is in itself the demonstration of a moral flaw and a moral failure, one that should be and can be dealt with on its on demerits.

There is plenty of room for uncertainty in any religion, including Christianity. God did not provide every answer to every question in the Bible. But some things he did make abundantly clear, and that homosexuality is contrary to his standard of morality and contrary to his design for the expression of human sexuality is one of them.

This clarity is further reinforced by the obvious practical misapplication of sexuality displayed by homosexual behavior: it serves no useful or legitimate biological function, and in some cases runs quite counter to some biological functions. The tremendous health risks (documented by the CDC, the Massachussetts Health Department and many other health organizations) once again reinforces that homosexual behavior is simply a bad practice that ought to be avoided.

That you are either utterly oblivious to this, or so at war with reason and conscience, that you cannot see a truth that practically shouts from the hilltops is very sad for you and for those homosexuals who continue to be misled down a path that contains only misery and death.

Bob, the reason I put the word independent in my original quote, was that I wanted people to look at the truly independent research, and not that sponsored by groups which have a special interest in slanting opinion one way or the other either anti or pro gay.

Your quote regarding the research being a result of "conformity and a herd-instinct" would appear to indicate that no matter how "independent" the research is, and no matter how much it will stand academic scrutiny, you will dismiss it, because it doesn't come down on your side of the argument. It would therefore seem pointless continuing to debate with you, as your view is never going to be changed by reasonable argument. However, just like Robert the Bruce, I will try, try and try again.

You mention the research conducted by Wheaton and Regent University. Would you be so kind as to provide a little more information, such as the authors or title of the research, so that I can read it myself. Many thanks.

My only observation about the research prior to being able to read it is, that when I view the Wheaton College home page, it states "for Christ & his Kingdom" and Regent University is described as America's pre-eminent Christian University with the slogan "Christian leadership to change the world". I worry that reserach carried out by academics working within religous academic institutions may suffer from the conformity and herd mentality that you speak of. How "independent" is the research that you says supports your view point.

To continue, I actually did a bit of reading on the Wheaton University site. There is an interesting section called "Is sexual orientation determined at birth". They quote a number of pieces of academic research, over a number of years which supports either side of the argument, that it is, or is not. I have taken a little time to copy the list from the Wheaton site as to where the research came from, to illustrate a point. Clearly some of the organisations listed will have a bias, but it still illustrates the point I am trying to make.

Those who state homosexuality is generally immutable and can not be changed: -

1. The American Psychological Association
2. Frederick L. Whitam, PhD, Professor in the Department of Sociology at Arizona State University
3. Harold M. Schulweis, ThD, Rabbi of Valley Beth Shalom Temple
4. Kenneth S. Kendler, MD, Director of the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics
5. Richard Pillard, MD, Professor of Psychiatry at the Boston University School of Medicine
6. Anthony Bogaert, PhD, Associate Professor at Brock University
7. Kenneth M. Cohen, PhD, Lecturer in Human Development at Cornell University
8.Vernon L. Quinsey, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Biology, and Psychiatry and Head of the Department of Psychology at Queen's University
9. Edward O. Wilson, PhD, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biology at Harvard University
10.Simon LeVay, PhD, neurologist and Co-Founder of the Institute of Gay and Lesbian Education

(and I could go on, but get the idea)

Those who support the position that the homosexual sexual orientation is a choice: -

1. Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX)
2. Timothy J. Dailey, PhD, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Marriage and Family Studies of the Family Research Council
3. Peter Sprigg, MDiv, Vice President for Policy at the Family Research Council
4. Richard C. Friedman, MD, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry in the Weill Medical College at Cornell University
5. Stony Olsen, JD, Research Assistant at the University of Utah School of Medicine
6. Charles Socarides, MD, Founder of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
7. The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property
8. Irving Bieber, MD, medical psychoanalyst and former faculty of New York Medical College.
9. The Traditional Values Coalition
10. The Family Research Council

As any intelligent person will identify, there appears to be a bias, in that the research from traditional value, faith based or conversion therapy organisations, clearly disputes homosexuality being an innate characteristic. The list supporting the view that homosexuality is immutable appears on the face of it, to have more academic rigour, but hey, I haven't read it all, and I do not know if the individual authors have an agenda. I am just saying I look at all the evidence, see which appears to carry the most validity and weight, and take it from there.

There is also a growing weight of evidence from all over the world that sexual orientation is a combination of factors, but that bioligical factors, specifically hormone levels during gestation has a large impact on orientation, possibly combined with genetic pre-disposition and environmental factors. Recent research on brain mapping has identified a significant correalation between the structures of heterosexual females and homosexual men, and conversly, the brains of lesbian women and heterosexual men. This is seen as supportive of the research which suggest that hormone levels during foetal development is an important factor.

I know I have gone slightly off topic but my point is this: -

I am probably never going to change your mind, because the first two paragraphs of your reply put me in doubt that you are open minded enough to even consider the possibility that people may be born homosexual.

You see your first two paragraphs state that the "independent" research can not be relied upon, but then you evidence your statement that people have been converting from homosexuality for thousands of years by quoting Coronthians. The irony of that made me chuckle, thank you.

If you did accept that possibility that people are born gay, the rest of your proposition is more difficult to justify. You then have to move from the "being gay is a choice argument" to, being gay is ok, as long as you do not act upon those "desires", what many lovingly describe as the "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument.

But you see then you are saying....ok...you are born that way, but your "behaviour" does not fit in with my moral viewpoint based upon my religous beliefs, which states your "behaviour" is immoral and a sin, and therefroe you should either seek to desist from it, or change it, since as you put it, it is "bad".

What if people do not accept your moral or religious viewpoint that who they are is "bad". What if they believe that an innate part of their make up as a human being is ok with them. Who are you to tell them it is bad, and create individual or societal pressure to change something, which most of the reputable science will tell you is probably fixed. Your belief system and personal views are just that...personal, and long may you be free to follow them and live your life by them, but you have no right to impose them on other people .

Lastly, if I was a betting man, and followed the odds, I would look at the number of documented cases of people who claim to have converted from homosexuality. They are few and far between, and those that I have read often seem to have a common thread of the individual fully embracing some religous doctrine which states that homosexuality is bad, or that it was supression of homosexual feelings that they have experienced, and not a fundamental shift in who they are attracted to, i.e. people of the same sex.

To quote Michael Bussee, the co-founder of Exodus and now an outspoken critic of the group, he said that the "therapy"

"does not promise change, but instead offers patients help in managing their desires and modifying their behavior to match their religious values -- even if that means a life of celibacy"

How sad to go through your life not enjoying it as a fully interacting participant in all this wonderful world has to offer, the joy of companionship, being loved and loving back, intimacy and commitment to another consenting adult because people like you say it is wrong.

The "independent" research you seek is pretty rare, prana. Even the APA clearly caved to intimidation and peer pressure in 1973 when they removed homosexual behavior from their manual of disorders. It wasn't based on research, clinical data, new scientific findings...only the fact that homosexual activists had protested, harassed and intimidated at their meetings.

Unfortunatley, even professional groups have chosen the easy path, and have forefeited their credibility. It is indeed truly amazing that so-called professional people and professional groups could put bias and emotionalism ahead of clear, objective truths. But then, for all their education and training, they remain human beings like the rest of us, subject to the same fears, emotional needs for acceptance, and make the same mistakes. Unfortunately, when they make such critical compromises, their failure usually fosters dangerous compromises in many other people influenced by them.

Rather than respond to your hopeful but misguided comments one by one as I am tempted, allow me to try and summarize a few simple truths, for what it's worth.

1. There is no "gay gene." In other words, there is no proof whatsoever that people are "born homosexual." There is only flawed research--usually done by people who are quite obviously biased in favor of an excuse to commit immoral acts--based on presumption and wishful thinking, and which always has alternative interpretations.

2. Even if there was a "gay gene" which genetically predisposed some people toward homosexual attractions, they would still be morally obligated to resist those immoral impulses. As a former drunk (I haven't had a drink in 15 years), some people claim my predisposition toward alcohol abuse is genetic. I reject that, but even if they were right, does that then issue me a license to drink to my heart's content? Does it excuse any crime I might commit while drunk? Does it make it okay for me to drink and drive? Does it make it morally acceptable for me to be drunk 24/7? No, I have an obligation to society AND to my Creator--who made it clear that drunkenness is wrong--to resist that impuse. Many people have the impulse to leave their spouse and commit adultery--should the follow that impulse, or are they morally obligated to resist it? I think the answer is very clear.

3. Even if there were some biological flaw which led some people to be born with an homosexually-oriented birth defect (and it would indeed be a birth defect, because it runs counter not only to how their Creator intended them to be, but counter to any rational and functional biological purpose), society would still be under no logical obligation whatsoever to legitimize and accommodate this birth defect. On the contrary, society would have every obligation to help them overcome it in any way possible, just as we try to help people with birth defects to overcome them in other areas.

4. Homosexuality is obviously an erroneous way to live. It runs counter to nature, having no useful or legitimate biolgical function. It runs counter to the overwhelming body of human behavior (97.1% of human beings behavior in the opposite manner), making it an abnormal, abberant behavior. It runs counter to the historical body of human behavior, having never comprised more than the same aforementioned fringe element and having never been more than tolerated by any human society. It runs counter to the moral teaching of every major religion on earth--especially the one ascribed to by more than 80% of Americans, a nation made up of the people and the will and views of the people. And the body of health evidence surrounding homosexual behavior clearly indicates it is as risky or more risky than drinking or illicit drug use; according to the health data we not only should not "tolerate" it, we should be mounting a large public service campaign to dissuade people from destroying their lives in such a manner.

In short, only a people who have lost touch with sanity would tolerate or embrace such an abberant, immoral and harmful behavior. And under no circumstances could encouraging or condoning this physically and spiritually dangerous behavior be considered a loving, benevolent act...any more than telling someone that if they want to do meth, they should just "be who they are" and "celebrate" their love for meth.

I doubt that any of this will reach you, at least not today. You apparently have spent considerable time digesting the deadly philosophical poison which allows you to accept homosexual behavior as legitimate on some level.

But my hope is that it might make some sense to someone who is wrestling with that question and has not yet succumbed to the intoxicating influence of such error, or someone who has (as I became sick and tired of being a drunk 15 years ago) become sick and tired of the dead-end way of life homosexual behavior brings, and is now open to a little truth.

And who knows, maybe a kernel has been planted in your mind, and if it's watered by enough truth in the days to come, perhaps you'll eventually realize that a life of homosexuality is an unhealthy and immoral way to live life...and that your Creator wants infinitely better for you.

I would ask that you take the time to read the considerable number of independent academic research papers that indicate that sexual orientation, for the most part, is immutable and that considerable mental damage can be caused to those people who choose to undertake any form of "conversion" therapy. I would also ask that you read the testimonies of people who left Exodus International, who totally refute their claims of being able to "cure" homosexuality.

I do not dispute that you can supress whatever sexual attractions you feel, be they homo or hetero-sexual, and that is focus of a lot of these organisations, supression not conversion. This is why it is, in the main, a dangerous process. The academic rigour of the research which claims to be able to document cases of people who have "left" homosexuality for a heterosexual life, is at best, very shaky, and does not have enough sample cases to provide any statistical validity. It is also discredited by most independent academics. After you have taken the time to do your own research into the subject, please make up your own mind as to who was doing the most harm, those who are trying to tell people they must and can be something they are not, and potentially causing them years of mental anguish, living a shadow of a life, or those seeking to expose, what they see as a lie. I leave you to find your own truth on the matter.

I have read a considerable amount of "independent" academic research which claims homosexual orientation is immutable and unchangeable. I put "independent" in quotes because the majority of this is not "independent" at all, but is really just herd-instinct conformity to peer pressure from those who are more interested in license than reliable information.

People have been leaving homosexual behavior behind for thousands of years. The Bible even documents this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Like any behavior, homosexual behavior can become habitual after time. And like any self-destructive behavior that provides some positive but fleeting feeling, it becomes very difficult to give it up (I speak as a former drunk). Homosexual behavior is no different.

In order to leave homosexual behavior, an acknowledgment that the behavior is harmful (wrong) is required first. The person must also realize that the cost of continuing that behavior is higher than the discomfort of ending the behavior. And the person must reach a point where they are ready to commit to ending the behavior. And all of these factors must remain present for a considerable amount of time, until the person learns to live without whatever positive sensations the destructive behavior brought. If any of these factors start to routinely break down, the individual is unlikely to succeed in stopping the behavior.

Will every person who would like to end their homosexual behavior succeed? Unfortunately, no. In fact, probably most will not. But then, most people who get hooked on drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc. stay enslaved to it at some level the rest of their lives.

A study by a couple of psychology professors from Wheaton University and Regent University about a year ago found that the success rate of participants in the Exodus program had a 38% success rate. Interestingly, the success rate for alcohol abuse is less than 25%, and less than 10% at 5 years.

So the rate of homosexuals leaving their behavior behind is considerably better than that of alcoholics who try to leave their behavior behind. And that study found another 29% that had partial success in leaving homosexuality but were committed to continuing efforts to leave it behind. I don't know the statistics for "partial success" for alcoholism, but I would imagine it would be somewhat comparable.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are invested in maintaining the lie that homosexual behavior is innate and cannot be changed. Obviously, homosexual activists want to perpetuate this fallacy because they don't want to change, and every ex-homosexual who testifies to change indicts them as a liar. And unfortunately in our politically correct society, even professionals find it easier (especially with relentless homosexual activists hounding them) to simply go along with the herd than to make a difficult stand for an unpopular truth.

Points well made; this really sums up what the fight for "gay rights" is really about. "There are none so blind as those who choose not to see..."