I like the way you think 😉

You state:

“These are not sexual orientations! They are lusts. When Paul addressed the desire of a woman wanting to get it on with another woman or a man wanting to get it on with another man in Romans 1:26, 27, he did not call it sexual orientation. He called it a vile affection, a lust.”

Well, since the bible stated that it was better to be married than to “burn with lust,” I suppose heterosexuality is no different from homosexuality. (1 Corinthians, 7:9). They are all lusts.

Perhaps allowing same-sex couples the same “remedy” for their lusts as heterosexuals might just be the way to go. Let them marry. Perhaps that’s what God was suggesting after all.

Thanks for the thought.

Homosexual, Bi-sexual, Trans-sexual? What about a man who wants to get it on with a horse, is he an equesti-sexual? These are not sexual orientations! They are lusts. When Paul addressed the desire of a woman wanting to get it on with another woman or a man wanting to get it on with another man in Romans 1:26, 27, he did not call it sexual orientation. He called it a vile affection, a lust. Quit trying to be smarter that God, and make his word the final authority in sexual matters.

Don

You can point your finger in one direction only but, in an honest discussion, you recognize the possibility that both sides may be less than perfect in their approach. It seems there’s enough closed-mindedness and bigotry on BOTH sides to muddle discussions for a long time to come.

I agree with you Eddy – There IS enough closed mindedness and bigotry on both sides to muddle discussions.

I think Ann and Mary have been trying to point out that the focus here seems to be on all the ‘ex-gay’ inconsistencies. Yes, they have them. But it doesn’t mean that the other side isn’t guilty of pretty much the same. You can point your finger in one direction only but, in an honest discussion, you recognize the possibility that both sides may be less than perfect in their approach. It seems there’s enough closed-mindedness and bigotry on BOTH sides to muddle discussions for a long time to come.

I’m not stressing this point to prove something related to gays in general, only to “suggest a link” between the need to reduce feelings of depression and need for affection by sexual cruising.

I think its a pretty established viewpoint that people use all sorts of things to decrease depression in their lives. Sometimes addictions – to anything – and that includes sex, can be seen as such. This isn’t new or revolutionary – I’m assuming then that we agree on this, although I’m still not sure about the reason behind bringing this up.

Of course addictions are not created by orientation and they can be addressed as a separate problem, but what created those addictions is orientation-specific in people who do not succeed in finding a stable partner. He resorts to addiction to reduce unmet emotional needs that are only temporarily alleviated by anonymous sex.

what created those addictions is still not orientation-specific – it is lifestyle specific and you seem to be getting these two things confused. There would be straight people who also fit this definition – it has nothing to do with orientation at all.

You stated:

“Nonetheless, even you have your own definition and cannot understand why someone would want to change. That kind of mentality limits our ability to really know others and accept them for who they are – instead we are just accepting them blindly and never understanding.”

Please reread my post above…

I state: “I suppose my own conclusions have been that although it is not a choice I would make, it is valid for those who make it. I respect them and wish them well, just as I hope they do the same for me….respecting my decision to live in accordance with my own attractions, and not attempt to stand in the way of my own happiness.”

My thoughts Mary, is that I don’t think there is a blanket explanation as to why people wish not to have SSA…so I don’t speculate. I don’t think it is important for me to assume that all people have the same reasons, nor is their explanation a prerequisite for my acceptance of them.

In therapy, of course I am assuming they would discuss this, but if they decided not to, I think this also says volumes.

I do accept them blindly…although in getting to know them, I hope to learn more about their wishes, desires, and reasons for many of their life decisions. I don’t force it, I don’t assume, and I don’t demand to know – it’s a very personal thing.

We are all human beings in this world – unless you are harming me in some way, I do accept you blindly. I don’t have conditions for this.

You are attacking an argument I do not defend. I never said that all gays are promiscuous or anything to this effect. Please remember the point in debate was seeing how justified reasons to change are or if any such judgement should be made by non-involved parties, such as you and me. That gay man may be wrong in seeing a general pattern for all those problems in the community in which he lived for more than 30 years, but he may also be right and you may live in a more carefree milieu. We all are prone to making general statements based on our experience in a social environment that we choose and that is chosen by others for the same reason of social similarity and reducing the pressure to adapt. However, given that he confessed to having as much as 100 partners until now, I reckon that that qualifies as impressive record for sexual experience by any standards. (He is also the guy who said that his sexual record is rather low compared against other people’s experience in his gay community.) I’m not stressing this point to prove something related to gays in general, only to “suggest a link” between the need to reduce feelings of depression and need for affection by sexual cruising. Obviously if he had succeeded in finding stable partners, he would have met that need and reduced his addictive behaviours. I actually suggested this to him, to find a stable partner, because I have serious doubts that his chances to change are anything around those of people who never had gay encounters.

As for the second part of your argument, let me just say that your reply is purely logical, it completely misses the specificity of the issue. Of course addictions are not created by orientation and they can be addressed as a separate problem, but what created those addictions is orientation-specific in people who do not succeed in finding a stable partner. He resorts to addiction to reduce unmet emotional needs that are only temporarily alleviated by anonymous sex. It’s one of the main reasons he wants to change. I specifically wrote that the problem it’s not in his failure to establish longer relationships, but also in both partners’ failure to limit their cruising. Maybe it happens in particular “subsets” or maybe it has to do with certain personality types, but the bottom line is the same — it doesn’t work. He says: I only have a feeling of worthiness when I “give sex” (his expression), but that kills everything else. That is coming from the part of a very educated person, who teaches in university and plays classical piano. I would really like to invite him here to drop a few lines about his experience, I’m sure he can present his problems a lot better than I could. I’ll try to do that, if he agrees with the idea.

I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear – let me rephrase this: What I find interesting is that in my experience it is often EX-GAY people who are trying to do this, not gay people” 🙂

You asked: “Would you say you are neutral with your clients about the direction of their lives?”

I would respond that I am as neutral as I can be, which is why I advocate for my gay clients to have the right to establish families (be protected, able to marry, etc..), my straight clients to have their rights protected and have choices, and clients who wish to be ex-gay to have options which are scientifically researched and sound.

People should have the choice to lead their lives the way they wish…and I try to do my best to make sure every group has the safe options, legal protections and choice of doing just that.