No worries- I didn’t think you were picking on me – I think we might have a better understanding of each other now. I also feel like our exchanges are much less heated

I believe that your words: “Since I labored to talk about a personal God…who directs, guides, empowers, convicts…your phrases seem to indicate that you missed that. ” – while these words are beautiful and true, I still think they can be summed up in the general description of IMMINENCE! I agree with all your adjectives used to describe God though – perhaps that is a better statement. They are the same words I would use to describe God – even though there are so many more.

I was never talking about trying to prove when God’s grace and support entered the picture – If instead of using the words suppression, repression or “true change” you want to use “misguided guilt” or “conviction of the Holy Spirit” I suppose that’s fine, but I think those terms muddy up the picture. I think it is you that has missed the simplicity of my argument and seems – I’m sure unwillingly and unconsciously – to make it more complicated than it really is. All I’m suggesting is that we use less subjective means in the near future to test the claims made by SOME ex-gay people. I think that’s a reasonable thing to expect if the ex-gay community wants to bring science into the picture – that’s all. However, I’m also all for leaving the option open to letting this process remain a divine mystery – but what I said above still stands – if you want science in the picture, then let’s have science there, if you don’t, well…….

When a study like the J&Y study makes a claim that “orientation” is being changed, I would equate such a change (a real change of orientation) with God’s grace and divine intervention, and not something like suppression and repression. If someone were merely repressing those feelings – as many Ex-Gays have claimed they’ve done – then, to me, that wouldn’t qualify as “real change”, or a “change of orientation”. If you agree with me on this, then, from your statements above (re: being able to prove the HOW or Why), it seems to me as if you’d agree that we can’t prove – in the J&Y study – that orientation has really changed – since you told me that we could never prove God’s involvement in the process. I DO think, though, that we can prove where God ISN’T involved (In my mind that would be when feelings are simply being suppressed or repressed) – does that make sense?

Now, if we all we want to do is to define orientation as feelings and behaviors, which can be suppressed, or repressed – then maybe we can say real change has occurred, even if someone is only suppressing those feelings – but, from the way I hear most people talk about orientation, I don’t think most would agree with this.

What!? You agree with me!? I guess surely on the ideas about science and what it can or cannot determine. But not those ideas I have on segregating components of sexual attraction, or dare I hope you agree there also? I think I feel faint… must be my low potassium levels….

First off all, science never proves anything. Yes, that’s right science proves nothing. Science provides factual evidence from which logical and reasonable conclusions may be drawn. And there may come to be a preponderance of evidence for a reasonable and logical conclusion by which for practical purposes approaches proof. But there is no rigorous proof in the sciences such as there is in mathematics.

In the J&Y study, their grouping of persons into classes and the percentages for each grouping are NOT facts. The facts are one or two steps away in the answers they received to the questions they asked. The J&L classes and percentages are a logical interpretation by the authors based perhaps in their own biases. They are not scientific fact.

As Eddy stated that “god’s grace,” “god’s will,” or the “power of the spirit of god” could have been at work. For this science – and religion as well – can provide no factual evidence, and thus cannot with logic and reason state these supposed factors are at work. However, science can provide factual evidence that the focus of a person’s will upon the idea of “god’s grace.” “god’s will,” or the “power of the spirit of god” may be a reliable attribute towards changing one aspect of a person’s life from certain behaviors, such smoking, obsessive sex, to drug addiction. I’ll be frank and say that I believe that there is ample evidence that such a religious focus of will does indeed often have the desired results. But that doesn’t allow for a reasonable and logical conclusion that a god was at work nor does it allow for the exposition of any “truth.”

Also one may question what aspects of sexuality are being studied in works such as that of J&L or S&S or Spitzer. I’ve asked before, what is sexual orientation/attraction/preference? Dr T has presented in the past in this blog what he believes to be evidence that sexual orientation is fluid. But is it that specific definable trait (what is that definition?) that is fluid or is it another trait or aspect of any trait? Or are those persons who exhibit fluidity, simply those with a fluid orientation (ie [am]bisexual)?

There seems to be a varied body of evidence that lessening of one orientation/attraction/preference does not afford and increase in the other. That is sexual orientation/attraction/preference is not fluid and would indicate that other related aspects of sexuality are being decreased. For this reason I would propose that a study such as J&Y is delving into several related aspects of sexuality but packaging if up as one – sexual orientation.

My own preference (no where near fact, simply speculation or a hypothesis to be tested) is first of all not to use the term sexual preference. I would use an overall “catchall” term for all such included sexual aspects to be sexual attraction. Sexual attraction would (should) includes all willful conscious and subconscious aspects of sexuality which has representation in the conscious mind of the individual. Overall this is what is reported by an individual in a study such as that of J&Y.

I would propose that the greater aspect of the totallity of sexual attration is a subconscious element which is what should be called sexual orientation. I would further propose that such a subconscious element is either a product of biology or the earliest of human neuro/psychological development such that this element tends towards immutability.

Another aspect of sexuality which affects the overall sexual attraction is the sexual drive. A lessening of one’s sexual drive could be interpreted as a reduction in sexual attractions. Another aspect of sexual attraction is the social order into which one seeks entrance. Certainly there are many more aspects of sexuality included in sexual attractions including later psychological developments and sexual abuse. Listing these and others (i.e., sexual fantasy, sexual behavior, emotional attractions, social attractions, social behavior, and sexual self-identification) is probably the job (duty) of the psychologist/neurologist who delves into sexual attractions and their change (I’ve been perusing Google Searches and GoogleScholar Searches of the phrase).

But overall it is the conscious mind which considers and reports on sexual attraction, the catchall. The conscious, willful mind can perhaps negate those aspects of sexual attraction which are derivative of the hypothesized subconscious, instinctual mind (such as sexual orientation), but perhaps only with great motivations such as that deriviative of the social order. Even then as reported by the president of Exodus, homosexual attraction (conscious recognition of the subconscious sexual orientation) may come to the fore.

Eh… I did it again,….. Ramblin’man.

But why is that the reparative therapy/SIT/Exodus crowd seems to have such a reliance upon Kinsey numbers instead of a system which more thoroughl describes human sexuality/sexual attraction/orientation such as the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid?