What does you all think of this?

[Colrom]

I have no starting opinion on this group and no interest other than for general understanding of religious and scientific views. So I did some (very) quick research on Google.

 

Many sources on the net seem to think this group reflects the views and furthers the agendas of several religious groups which many consider extremist.

 

Here's an article describing one of their activities.

 

Group Prepares Legal Challenge to 'Born Gay' Theory

By Lawrence Morahan

CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer

October 29, 2003

 

(CNSNews.com) - A coalition representing former homosexuals is developing a legal strategy to litigate on behalf of people who challenge the proposition that individuals are "born gay."

 

The group also is seeking to promote the idea, particularly among schoolchildren, that people can overcome unwanted homosexual attractions.

 

Arthur Goldberg, president of Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality and co-director of Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, said the coalition intends to stress the concept of diversity, a concept he said homosexual advocacy groups have misrepresented to promote the concept that people can't change.

 

"We want to make sure that people understand the diversity, that this is an open forum. We want toleration of those who have been able to successfully change and get their rights recognized as real rights," Goldberg said

 

Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a professor at Grove City College, Pa., and a supporter of the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, or PFOX, said the coalition aims to correctly portray the current state of research concerning sexual orientation.

 

"There are two broad views about the origins of homosexuality - one being related to environmental factors and one being primarily related to genetic factors," said Throckmorton. "The truth is, the science on the subject is so unclear that we can't really say with certainty that we know what the role of any of those factors are."

 

Since homosexuality cannot be identified by immutable genetic traits, such as skin or hair color, spokesmen for the coalition said policymakers should be allowed to hear that thousands of people who used to consider themselves homosexuals now are living as heterosexuals.

 

Coalition members also want to see an end to what they consider reverse discrimination by institutions. Since homosexuality is no longer considered a disorder, neither should recovery from homosexuality be considered a disorder, they said.

 

Goldberg described so-called ex-gays, who he said are fighting a two-front war, as "the most repressed minority in the world."

 

"They're fighting an internal battle with their own unfilled emotional needs on the one side, and on the other, they're fighting society, which is telling them to accept it," Goldberg said.

 

Indeed, institutions that suppress the message could put themselves in legal jeopardy. According to Goldberg, schools and universities that tell questioning individuals homosexuality is genetic may be liable in lawsuits if clients endanger themselves or others by engaging in sex acts on the advice of school counselors or psychologists.

 

Data show that an individual's environment clearly plays a role in forming sexual attitudes, Throckmorton said. Also, there may be some factors that would be loosely called genetic that influence sexual choice in some way.

 

"But to say that we have any kind of clarity about the way that would occur is just wrong," Throckmorton said.

 

The message that homosexuality is determined genetically could give homosexual advocacy organizations more ammunition in calls for special legislation and enactment of hate crimes laws.

 

Conservative groups said they would use same-sex marriage as an issue to rally voters in the 2004 presidential election.

 

Mark Mead, a spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual advocacy group within the GOP, discounted the message that homosexuals can change and claimed telling people they can is not likely to be helpful.

 

"Most of the people I know who claim to have changed usually end up getting caught in gay bars or in gay relationships. I think that message has been dismissed by most folks with common sense," Mead said.

 

But Throckmorton said the coalition's primary objective was to reach policymakers, particularly in the field of education, "because so much of what the schools are teaching concerning sexual orientation is really suspicious from a scientific point of view."

 

Many school authorities have adopted the "born gay - gay gene theory" as fact, ignoring a considerable scientific controversy over that theory, Throckmorton said.

 

"Not just among evangelicals and secularists, but within the scientific community, there are many people who simply don't accept that the data support that theory," Throckmorton said.

[Colrom]

Further internet searching suggests that PATH members insinuate and advocate themselves and their views onto forums and blogs quite frequently and especially to dismiss the findings of scientific research about sexuality which do not conform to their beliefs.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Colrom

[Judge Hades]

That is the problem there: Belief. Beliefs and faith should have no place in scientific studies, only the gathered empirical data should matter. Belief and faith often override and bias the data that is collected therefore making it useless.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Purgatorio]

Well said. I will add: A society governed by morality is flawed. Morality is based on religion ,religion on belief ,belief is not subject to reason.

In my first post I was refering to a program I saw on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting [Commission - meta].) It was about this very subject. They don't have the full transcript but here is a synopsis.CLICK FOR FREE PRoN!

Edited August 30, 2006 by metadigital

[Pidesco]

That is the problem there:  Belief.  Beliefs and faith should have no place in scientific studies, only the gathered empirical data should matter.  Belief and faith often override and bias the data that is collected therefore making it useless.

 

That's all well and good in theory, but belief is always an essential part of scientific discovery. Einstein believed his ideas about the universe to be true, long before he had his theories all set out in a complete package and this belief was an essential part of the drive he needed to fully develop those theories.

[Dark Moth]

Well said. I will add: A society governed by morality is flawed. Morality is based on religion ,religion on belief ,belief is not subject to reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is absolutely ridiculous and untrue. You don't need religion to have morality. Some of the world's greatest philosophers weren't religious in the sense you're thinking of. And it's also unfair and untrue to say belief is not subject to reason. Many base their beliefs on reason. In other words, they believe in whatever scenario might be more likely to be true. This includes us religious folk and scientists. Some scientists don't have concrete proof for their theories, but they believe them to be true based on reason. Get it? And I don't know if you realize it, but a lot of governments are based on society's concept of morality. You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find a government that is not based on the accepted moral standards of whatever society it precides over.

[Colrom]

That's all well and good in theory, but belief is always an essential part of scientific discovery. Einstein believed his ideas about the universe to be true, long before he had his theories all set out in a complete package and this belief was an essential part of the drive he needed to fully develop those theories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The test results which led to the development Einstein's special theory were already in place when he developed his theory.

 

The development was quite simple.

 

Anyone might have done it! (Well, maybe not just anyone!)

 

Take the test results as true and out comes Einstein's theory pretty much by force.

 

Einstein's brilliance was in accepting reality. (Which, however, he later had trouble doing with regard to quantum mechanics.)

 

His hypothesis was that there was no Ether and the speed of light was always the same for all observers, no matter how they moved relative to each other. That was what the tests had shown.

 

E=mc^2 and a bunch of other stuff just followed from that.

 

 

In any case there is a difference between a belief as in a hypothesis and a belief as in a matter of faith.

 

The folks who belong to PATH seem to have faith based positions about the origins of homosexuality.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Colrom

[Dark Moth]

Do you even know what a theory is? I'll just assume 'yes'. A theory is different from a law because a theory doesn't necessarily have concrete proof that it is true. A theory is rarely infalable. Hence the name theory. While a theory is based on reason, research, and deduction, because of the lack of concrete proof scientists have to go by what they believe, not what they know. Yes, it is possible for a scientist to have the dreaded thing known as 'faith'. It's what they believe to be true but that doesn't necessarily make it reality.

 

Type faster, dammit! Anyway I'd love to stay and continue this little chat, but classes start at 8:00 AM tommorow and sleep calls.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Fionavar]

Could I add a slight warning (dressed as a proviso) discuss the topic with respect and decorum. Attacking the person makes me move ... and I really do like simply lying on the Roost ...

[><FISH'>]

CLICK  FOR FREE PRoN!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

liek, omg t3h hawtn4ss!!1 (w00t)

 

But I'm confused about this part:

 

no Calvin Klein clothing; men must shave once a day and women twice a week

 

Not shaving encourages homosexuality?

Edited August 30, 2006 by ><FISH'>

[Colrom]

Actually a "law" is a word usually used in science for definitions of terms or a special simple case of a "theory" or model.

 

Newton's "laws" are largly just definitions.

 

For exampe the law which says that the quantity of motion is the product of the mass and the velocity is a definition of momentum. The law which says that the force is equal to the time rate of change of the quantity of motion is just the definition of a force.

 

I suppose the law that every force has an equal and opposite force might really be a theory - although it seems a particularly trivial case - given that tables and chairs don't spontaneously fly apart.

 

Every scientific theory really stays a theory indefinitely. There is always the possibility that in the future there will be some deviation measured from the predicted results (subject to quantum mechanical limitations - thank God).

 

The "gas laws" are special cases. They also are innacurate. Better models exist - which are also innacurate - but less so. Kinetic theory is used to build them. Good enough.

 

It is not a good idea to get overly hung up on the words.

 

Especially since scientists are often sloppy about their vocabulary.

 

Shame on them.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Colrom

[Colrom]

Type faster, dammit!  Anyway I'd love to stay and continue this little chat, but classes start at 8:00 AM tommorow and sleep calls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Good night.

[alanschu]

I remember a story I read once about a boy who very early in his childhood (soon after being born) had his **** burned off. Some doctors convinced the parents that with proper hormones and raising the guy as a girl he would in the end act like a girl himself. So after some operations he was "turned girl"

 

Though he didn't want to do all girly stuff like play with dolls and when puberty hit he found himself in love with other girls... and when he hit like 20 they had to revert all the stuff and "make him man" again.

 

Morale; Education/raising means jack... it is in the nature...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Twin studies disagree.

[Purgatorio]

Well said. I will add: A society governed by morality is flawed. Morality is based on religion ,religion on belief ,belief is not subject to reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Libertine. Only simplified.

CLICK  FOR FREE PRoN!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

liek, omg t3h hawtn4ss!!1 (w00t)

 

But I'm confused about this part:

 

no Calvin Klein clothing; men must shave once a day and women twice a week

 

Not shaving encourages homosexuality?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny and disturbing. All those hairy French women.

[><FISH'>]

Well said. I will add: A society governed by morality is flawed. Morality is based on religion ,religion on belief ,belief is not subject to reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Libertine. Only simplified.

CLICK  FOR FREE PRoN!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

liek, omg t3h hawtn4ss!!1 (w00t)

 

But I'm confused about this part:

 

no Calvin Klein clothing; men must shave once a day and women twice a week

 

Not shaving encourages homosexuality?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny and disturbing. All those hairy French women.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hope that article meant 'waxing' instead of 'shaving' for the women.

[alanschu]

Do you even know what a theory is? I'll just assume 'yes'. A theory is different from a law because a theory doesn't necessarily have concrete proof that it is true. A theory is rarely infalable. Hence the name theory. While a theory is based on reason, research, and deduction, because of the lack of concrete proof scientists have to go by what they believe, not what they know. Yes, it is possible for a scientist to have the dreaded thing known as 'faith'. It's what they believe to be true but that doesn't necessarily make it reality.

 

That's not a scientific theory at all. Scientific Theories are exceptionally strong statements, that are supported by empirical evidence. Anything lacking in proof is at best called a hypothesis.

 

And besides, the naming convention of Laws and Theories is outdated and not even followed. Einstein's theory of relativity is a far more accurate predictor of motion than Newton's Laws of Motion.

 

Here's an interesting read I have found

[SteveThaiBinh]

Here's an interesting read I have found

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, great. How am I going to get to the bank today? I'll have to look out my old mountaineering equipment.

 

Unless someone can prove gravity exists in the next hour or so.

[213374U]

Here's an interesting read I have found

Might be the lack of sleep, but it took me a while to realize that that was written with a humorous intent...

[alanschu]

Here's an interesting read I have found

Might be the lack of sleep, but it took me a while to realize that that was written with a humorous intent...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I know, me too actually.

 

 

Until I read the wikpedia link and realized that the author was a utilitan as well. Then I started to put the pieces together

[metadigital]

You are.

There are many documented instances of homosexuality in nature, from chimpanzees and dogs to whales.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And those animals never engage in heterosexual relations, under any circunstances whatsoever?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct. Exclusively homosexual.

[thepixiesrock]

No matter how original the topic starts out, we always seem to shift it to the same old recycled arguments that we've had before.

[metadigital]

I didn't mention the Nazis!

[Colrom]

I just want to close up the discussion on Newton's "laws" a bit.

 

The problem with Newton's "laws" is that the underlying assumptions are wrong about the character of space and time - and hence the character of momentum and mass.

 

Folks didn't realize that what they took for granted about space and time was just a theory - and one that was wrong as well.

 

What a crazy idea it would have seemed to Newton that a radioactive material would have a longer apparant lifetime when moving faster!

 

Due diligence done. :D

[Walsingham]

Sorry to jump in late, and I'm sorry for not having time to read all the other responses. I'd say it's fair enough to make the case for trying to become straight. I know some homosexuals who'd find it far more convenient to be straight (or think they would; they should try my ex-girlfriends). But I reckon it's a waste of time. I'd say a person can contribute to the general health and wellbeing of the human race while being gay. End of the argument for me. Don't change your orientation, change the b****rs who are making being gay miserable.

[Dark Moth]

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I lack the maturity and intelligence to actually counter you, so I'm just going to delete everything you said and type in a lame-ass excuse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clarified.

 

Do you even know what a theory is? I'll just assume 'yes'. A theory is different from a law because a theory doesn't necessarily have concrete proof that it is true. A theory is rarely infalable. Hence the name theory. While a theory is based on reason, research, and deduction, because of the lack of concrete proof scientists have to go by what they believe, not what they know. Yes, it is possible for a scientist to have the dreaded thing known as 'faith'. It's what they believe to be true but that doesn't necessarily make it reality.

 

That's not a scientific theory at all. Scientific Theories are exceptionally strong statements, that are supported by empirical evidence. Anything lacking in proof is at best called a hypothesis.

 

And besides, the naming convention of Laws and Theories is outdated and not even followed. Einstein's theory of relativity is a far more accurate predictor of motion than Newton's Laws of Motion.

 

Here's an interesting read I have found

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of the "Big Bang theory" or the "String theory". Those kinds of theories which are based on fact but don't have concrete evidence that they are true. My point was that not all things in science are based upon concrete mathematical proof but must rely on reason and deduction instead. But they still are lacking in proof.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Dark Moth