The American Psychological Association and homosexual partners raising kids

[Thorolfr]

That is hardly conclusive evidence that efforts to “change SSA” are either completely or in large part unsuccessful.

Exodus International (1978): The ministry selected 30 of their 800 members as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Two outside psychiatrists interviewed the 30 and found that only three were actually heterosexual.

Subsequent to the study, two of the male founders of Exodus fell in love and were united in a union ceremony. They claimed that the Exodus program was “ineffective…not one person was healed.” The conversion rate, based on the study is 3 in 800, on the order of 0.4%

Nicolosi (2005): Dr. Nicolosi, the founder of NARTH who coined the term “reparative therapy” said in an interview with the Washington Post that of the patients at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director:

One third experience “significant improvement – they understand their homosexuality and have some sense of control.” **However, they may engage in same-sex sexual behavior. **

Another third are "cured;" they refrain from same-sex behavior and the strength and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished, but not necessarily gone.

The other third fail to change.

religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm

What Nicolosi considers to be “cured” doesn’t sound all that cured. And the Exodus success rate of 3 out of 800 doesn’t look very impressive either.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

I was thinking of making a rational reply, but I think it’s actually just as fun to watch the replies. Gay-“curing” therapies? What is wrong with you people?

 

[bobballen_18]

religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm

What Nicolosi considers to be “cured” doesn’t sound all that cured. And the Exodus success rate of 3 out of 800 doesn’t look very impressive either.

Sure, as I mentioned, there should be legitimate questions asked/debated on what constitutes a “cure” for homosexuality.

Personally, I don’t claim that any “cure”, in that one never experiences SSA again their whole lives, is possible. Is it maybe? I don’t know, regardless, I don’t claim that such “cure” exists today.

My whole issue revolves around someone trying to tell me that I have no right to pursue what I myself perceive to be a “cure”. In my current view, a “cure” would be something which at the very least allows me to be at peace with my SSA. That is arguably a broad definition; however, no one has any right to tell me I can’t pursue that, and no one has any right to take away the option for me to pursue such treatment when such treatment has done so for others.

Bottom line here - no therapist should advertise themselves as “getting rid” of SSA - I agree with that. But if someone advertises themselves as addressing issues they believe to be behind SSA, which could possibly reduce SSA, I see no problem with that. As long as the potential patients are educated on the range of possibilites - from “no change at all” to “complete change” - and that many people fall somewhere in the middle.

Answer this question for me - do you believe that if a particular treatment is not able to rid a SSA individual completely from his SSA, 100% of the time, then it is not worthy of consideration? Keep in mind that many people who experience “little to no change” in their attractions still consider themselves happy with the treatment.

 

[Thorolfr]

Answer this question for me - do you believe that if a particular treatment is not able to rid a SSA individual completely from his SSA, 100% of the time, then it is not worthy of consideration? Keep in mind that many people who experience “little to no change” in their attractions still consider themselves happy with the treatment.

I doubt that reparative therapy programs are very effective, but I actually have no problem with adults attending such programs if they want. And as far as I know, none of the laws that restrict such programs applies to adults but only to children which I think is good since I’ve heard too many stories of adolescents being forced or coerced into such therapy programs by their parents against their will.

 

[bobballen_18]

I doubt that reparative therapy programs are very effective, but I actually have no problem with adults attending such programs if they want. And as far as I know, none of the laws that restrict such programs applies to adults but only to children which I think is good since I’ve heard too many stories of adolescents being forced or coerced into such therapy programs by their parents against their will.

Ah ok, great, I’m glad you don’t have a problem with adults attending such programs!

I think it is fine/fair to have concerns about kids attending such programs, but IMHO don’t think it should be banned. I think it can be a bad thing to “force” one’s children into any therapy program, but certainly not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly there should be room allowed for it under the right circumstances. In my opinion, most circumstances are adequate to allow a parent to at least have the option to put their children in such therapy, but I understand there could be legitimate debate about that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sure, as I mentioned, there should be legitimate questions asked/debated on what constitutes a “cure” for homosexuality.

Personally, I don’t claim that any “cure”, in that one never experiences SSA again their whole lives, is possible. Is it maybe? I don’t know, regardless, I don’t claim that such “cure” exists today.

My whole issue revolves around someone trying to tell me that I have no right to pursue what I myself perceive to be a “cure”. In my current view, a “cure” would be something which at the very least allows me to be at peace with my SSA. That is arguably a broad definition; however, no one has any right to tell me I can’t pursue that, and no one has any right to take away the option for me to pursue such treatment when such treatment has done so for others.

Bottom line here - no therapist should advertise themselves as “getting rid” of SSA - I agree with that. But if someone advertises themselves as addressing issues they believe to be behind SSA, which could possibly reduce SSA, I see no problem with that. As long as the potential patients are educated on the range of possibilites - from “no change at all” to “complete change” - and that many people fall somewhere in the middle.

Answer this question for me - do you believe that if a particular treatment is not able to rid a SSA individual completely from his SSA, 100% of the time, then it is not worthy of consideration? Keep in mind that many people who experience “little to no change” in their attractions still consider themselves happy with the treatment.

I don’t expect anybody to accept what I’m about to say. But I’m going to say it anyway.

That there is such a thing as porn addiction, few would deny. Nor would many deny that it’s treatable and curable, though the potential for backsliding would always be there. No one would deny that porn use is not only a moral fault, but can affect others negatively.

It’s not the only thing of its kind. I recall a lawyer friend of mine who was in court while the criminal defendants were being arraigned. One was being arraigned for statutory rape of a 16-year-old-going-on-30, who was there. Another lawyer turned to my friend and said something like “I can understand how the defendant was unable to resist that chick.” My friend replied “I can’t”. The first lawyer said to my friend something like “Oh come on. You can’t really say that.” “Yes I can” said my friend. “Why” ased the first guy.

“Because I’m Catholic and we’re taught to resist things like that. We don’t roll them around in our minds. We are taught to dispel those kinds thoughts if they present.”

And there’s truth to that; maybe a truth larger than a lot of people want to admit or practice. Imagine for a moment some old guy; let’s say age 65. His wife is getting saggy and baggy and maybe a bit hefty, and if he allowed himself to lust after some 25-year-old gal, and if she was willing to give him a tumble, there’s a good possibility he would. If he shuts it out and contents himself with his wife, he probably won’t.

So, when it comes to “reparative therapy”, it seems to me the Church of yore, at least, had it. It was a tough thing. It was a lifelong task. But we all know there are plenty of old geezers (and younger geezers) who resist the temptation to go after some chippy, and don’t allow themselves to ruminate about doing it to the point that it becomes almost insurmountable.

And are we so sure that homosexuality isn’t every bit as acquired as porn addiction or serial fornication? Are we so sure that the “reparative therapy” so many practice for a lifetime against our worst instincts can’t work in that context?

Our society is sex-drenched. No question about it. And the homosexual world is massively more so. And now, we’re getting to a point where both illicit heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are widely condoned, if not actively encouraged.

If one asks me (which I doubt anyone will) by the time a homosexual gets to the point of considering reparative therapy (and we don’t know how many at least sometimes consider it) he’s way, way into homosexuality. Like the porn addicts we read about who spend hours watching porn, it’s awfully late in the game to expect good results, because the acquired habit of resistance has not been developed or has been worn down or, worse still, the aberration has developed its own psychological defenses.

I once read an interesting book about defenses people who have psych aberrations of other sorts build for their malady. Some are extremely effective and so difficult for therapists to overcome that the treatment fails. I recall reading about one patient who described her defensive mechanisms as being something like a “death star”, that had both offensive and defensive “weapons” of extremely elaborate architecture. She knew about it, but she and the therapist couldn’t overcome it, and treatment failed.

That’s how I see homosexuality. It’s a malady caught late in the game if ever. By the time anyone tries to rethink it, it has already developed “death star” defenses. Nowadays, of course, development of defenses is mightily encouraged by society. And however this or that therapist might be able to get inside it, virtually all have conceded the field.

 

[Rau]

…Sure, depression may be a form of “not coping” with SSA. There have been proposed theories/arguments, though, that there is something further behind SSA, that SSA isn’t a condition one is born with - i.e., various factors in one’s development, beginning very early in one’s life, culminating in having SSA from whatever age.

I have no idea what prompts homosexual interests in anyone.

So sure, if something is behind SSA, the treatment won’t (always at least) be addressing sexuality and/or sexual attractions - it would be addressing those factors which they would argue led to the development of SSA.

I’m not aware that anyone is against this, though it may be somewhat speculative to assert that various factors in one’s early life are causes of homosexuality. Do we really know? But if those factors are themselves a source of distress, clearly they can be the focus of therapy.

I guess my whole point in posting is that I reject the view that “their genesis is entirely unknown” when it comes to homosexuality. Entirely? I don’t think so.

Someone may know, but the lack of widespread acceptance of a common cause is surely problematic. Something causes attraction to the opposite sex - can anyone point to exactly what?

Regarding treatment - see what I mentioned above - maybe there is no “accepted” treatment, but this doesn’t mean that there exist no treatments which haven’t been successful, it really only means, well, that such treatments haven’t been accepted yet as valid, basically. There must be continued research, and there must be research allowed on all forms of treatment, and as far as I am concerned, all treatment must be allowed as long as a potential patient is properly educated on the treatment he is seeking and as long as the treatment is not outright harmful

. I agree with most of this. I believe some treatments were found harmful for some persons.

Let’s be honest here, the biggest reason there are so many claims around that there is “no cure” for homosexuality revolves around the fact that we live in a culture that promotes same-sex relationships and unions as equal to opposite-sex relationships and marriages, and with this mindset, there is no point in looking for a “cure” to homosexuality.

There is truth in this for sure - though I don’t know whether this is the “biggest reason”.

Sure, what a “cure for homosexuality” would look like is a good debate - probably an ongoing one, though one wouldn’t know it since working through SSA seems to be frowned upon by society these days.

Compelling persons with SSA to undergo treatment, or to be studied, would be wrong. But there is no reason I can see to impede research into what causes homosexuality and whether a change in one’s sexual interests is possible.

 

[Rau]

…And are we so sure that homosexuality isn’t every bit as acquired as porn addiction or serial fornication?

But we must ask the question - why do most serial fornicators actively **desire **and **choose **those of the opposite sex, while others have no interest in that direction, and pursue the same sex?

And if we think homosexuality is learned, we need to **identify **the learning process(es) and **demonstrate **that it is universally experienced by persons identifying as homosexual.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But we must ask the question - why do most serial fornicators actively **desire **and **choose **those of the opposite sex, while others have no interest in that direction, and pursue the same sex?

And if we think homosexuality is learned, we need to **identify **the learning process(es) and **demonstrate **that it is universally experienced by persons identifying as homosexual.

I have read, for example, that a high percentage of adult homosexuals had homosexual experiences very early in life, usually at the hands of adults. I have also read that many homosexuals who abuse the young are not so much “rapists” as they are “seducers”, who bend their young victims to find pleasure in it.

Of course, there are those (or were) who believed dysfunctional parental roles are a cause. And there are crazy parents who deliberately confuse children about sexual identity.

But a problem now is that homosexuality really can’t be studied as an illness because the APA has decreed that it isn’t, and anyone trying to do it would not likely be funded, so strong is the “homosexuality is a variant of normal” creed now. And, of course, those who question that or its inherency would be pariahs in their own fields of study.

So, as it is now so vigorously affirmed, I would say there’s little chance of any serious studies being conducted in the immediate future.

But there are those who also say that homosexuality is not caused by one single thing common to all.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t expect anybody to accept what I’m about to say. But I’m going to say it anyway.

That there is such a thing as porn addiction, few would deny. Nor would many deny that it’s treatable and curable, though the potential for backsliding would always be there. No one would deny that porn use is not only a moral fault, but can affect others negatively.

“Because I’m Catholic and we’re taught to resist things like that. We don’t roll them around in our minds. We are taught to dispel those kinds thoughts if they present.”

And there’s truth to that; maybe a truth larger than a lot of people want to admit or practice. Imagine for a moment some old guy; let’s say age 65. His wife is getting saggy and baggy and maybe a bit hefty, and if he allowed himself to lust after some 25-year-old gal, and if she was willing to give him a tumble, there’s a good possibility he would. If he shuts it out and contents himself with his wife, he probably won’t.

So, when it comes to “reparative therapy”, it seems to me the Church of yore, at least, had it. It was a tough thing. It was a lifelong task. But we all know there are plenty of old geezers (and younger geezers) who resist the temptation to go after some chippy, and don’t allow themselves to ruminate about doing it to the point that it becomes almost insurmountable.

And are we so sure that homosexuality isn’t every bit as acquired as porn addiction or serial fornication? Are we so sure that the “reparative therapy” so many practice for a lifetime against our worst instincts can’t work in that context?

Our society is sex-drenched. No question about it. And the homosexual world is massively more so. And now, we’re getting to a point where both illicit heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are widely condoned, if not actively encouraged.

If one asks me (which I doubt anyone will) by the time a homosexual gets to the point of considering reparative therapy (and we don’t know how many at least sometimes consider it) he’s way, way into homosexuality. Like the porn addicts we read about who spend hours watching porn, it’s awfully late in the game to expect good results, because the acquired habit of resistance has not been developed or has been worn down or, worse still, the aberration has developed its own psychological defenses.

I once read an interesting book about defenses people who have psych aberrations of other sorts build for their malady. Some are extremely effective and so difficult for therapists to overcome that the treatment fails. I recall reading about one patient who described her defensive mechanisms as being something like a “death star”, that had both offensive and defensive “weapons” of extremely elaborate architecture. She knew about it, but she and the therapist couldn’t overcome it, and treatment failed.

That’s how I see homosexuality. It’s a malady caught late in the game if ever. By the time anyone tries to rethink it, it has already developed “death star” defenses. Nowadays, of course, development of defenses is mightily encouraged by society. And however this or that therapist might be able to get inside it, virtually all have conceded the field.

To make a population insensitive to sin was always the goal. Sexual sin is the driving force behind most family/relationship issues we have today. All of the evidence was/is there. The volume just kept getting turned up and up in every decade. Human Respect begins with Human Decency.

Respect of self, of others. But yeah, years of watching porn, years of Hollywood adding a little more and then a little more. Right and wrong. No. It has to fit the plan:

Cohabitation with sex.
STD epidemic.
Prostitution viewed positively.
Homosexuality is just one of those things
Pedophiles are currently trying to educate the public.
Gender identity so kids can use any restroom they want by court order.

Guess what? The Church was right all along, but it doesn’t matter how many babies die from abortion, or how many have STDs people have or how many relationships that could end whenever you feel like. You get a society that doesn’t care about commitment and real love. Just feeling good - all the time. And on some level, feeling like “Shut up. Don’t tell me what to do.” And you spent what? Hundreds, thousands of hours with porn, with how many women, with no feelings of guilt or shame? You taught yourself that by allowing the media to show you what to do. How to behave. And giving you plenty of reasons to self-gratify as opposed to having a real relationship.

At the end of the day, none of those things last. Redefining the family meant redefining parenting as well. Kids have been the victims for too long. The Church has wisely gotten out of adoption due to State coercion. The State, which is evil when it does not grant certain things, but the instrument by which wrong thinking becomes legalized.

Time to stop being vague. A way that was right was and is being bulldozed into an “it’s all about sex” world. And the APA has joined in by filing legal briefs and throwing in its support - to the planned goal.

Transgender? Not a disorder, though it was. Reason for change? Years of lobbying by pressure groups. Scientific? No. And it’s only a “problem” if you - and only you - are uncomfortable with it? That’s not rational. And if you are uncomfortable, what? What are they going to tell you? Being uncomfortable with being a man who wants to be a woman might lead to charges of “repairing” something? The answer: "Sorry you feel that way buddy, but you’re on your own. We’re busy filing amicus briefs.

Ed

 

[987mk]

There is no circumstance that could occur where you could convince a right wing Catholic that the studies are valid.

They won’t read them, won’t consider them and will not pay them any mind.

There mind is made up and that is final.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But we must ask the question - why do most serial fornicators actively **desire **and **choose **those of the opposite sex, while others have no interest in that direction, and pursue the same sex?

And if we think homosexuality is learned, we need to **identify **the learning process(es) and **demonstrate **that it is universally experienced by persons identifying as homosexual.

Let me add this. Are we really asking the right question here? You ask why serial heterosexual fornicators choose members of the opposite sex. Maybe the better question is why they are serial fornicators. And it may well be that when it comes to at least active homosexuals (fornicators by definition, more serial than not) the same question should be asked.

Is it not possible that some people experience pleasure in their sexual experiences and then become more or less entrapped by them through lack of exercising resistance to aberrant patterns? We are told that drugs cause changes in brain receptors which, once acquired, never return to normal. Certainly, sexual experience is accompanied by brain chemical changes that are ordinarily short-lived, or so we believe. But, at a point, do they become more persistent?

Can homosexual desire be little different from, say, the acquired habit of porn desire or serial heterosexual fornicating? Nobody, we would say, is a born porn consumer or serial fornicator. Nevertheless the search for “born that way” when it comes to homosexuality goes on. That’s really just a bias supported by political forces.

 

[Rau]

Let me add this. Are we really asking the right question here?

If you make the assertion that homosexuality is learned - as you did - then yes, I think I posed the correct questions.

You ask why serial heterosexual fornicators choose members of the opposite sex.

No - I did not ask that question - I asked “why do most serial fornicators desire and choose the opposite sex”.

Maybe the better question is why they are serial fornicators. And it may well be that when it comes to at least active homosexuals (fornicators by definition, more serial than not) the same question should be asked.

This misses the point. There are serial fornicators because they pursue pleasure. The question is - why do a proportion desire and engaging with same sex, while the majority find it in the other!

Is it not possible that some people experience pleasure in their sexual experiences and then become more or less entrapped by them through lack of exercising resistance to aberrant patterns? We are told that drugs cause changes in brain receptors which, once acquired, never return to normal. Certainly, sexual experience is accompanied by brain chemical changes that are ordinarily short-lived, or so we believe. But, at a point, do they become more persistent?

Perhaps so. But what provided the impetus to seek pleasure in the same sex direction? It is a difficult argument to make that all were seduced, entrapped, or similar.

Can homosexual desire be little different from, say, the acquired habit of porn desire or serial heterosexual fornicating?

This repeats your original point, to which I responded with my “questions”.

Nobody, we would say, is a born porn consumer or serial fornicator. Nevertheless the search for “born that way” when it comes to homosexuality goes on. That’s really just a bias supported by political forces.

Given there is not a scientific understanding of the drivers of SSA, I should think the search would be wide ranging. Why do you need to rule out the possibility of something amiss from the earliest stages of development? To do so (absent evidence) also suggests a bias!

 

[Rau]

I have read, for example, that a **high percentage of adult homosexuals had homosexual experiences very early in life, usually at the hands of adults. I have also read that many homosexuals who abuse the young are not so much “rapists” as they are “seducers”, **who bend their young victims to find pleasure in it.

Of course, there are those (or were) who believed dysfunctional parental roles are a cause. And there are crazy parents who deliberately confuse children about sexual identity.

Seems to me you are seeking to introduce evidence by arm-waving.

But a problem now is that homosexuality really can’t be studied as an illness because the APA has decreed that it isn’t, and anyone trying to do it would not likely be funded, so strong is the “homosexuality is a variant of normal” creed now. And, of course, those who question that or its inherency would be pariahs in their own fields of study.

I don’t know the facts here. There is no justification to not study the causes of one’s sexual interests.

 

[Rau]

To make a population insensitive to sin was always the goal. Sexual sin is the driving force behind most family/relationship issues we have today. All of the evidence was/is there. The volume just kept getting turned up and up in every decade. Human Respect begins with Human Decency.

Respect of self, of others. But yeah, years of watching porn, years of Hollywood adding a little more and then a little more. Right and wrong. No. It has to fit the plan:

Cohabitation with sex.
STD epidemic.
Prostitution viewed positively.
Homosexuality is just one of those things
Pedophiles are currently trying to educate the public.
Gender identity so kids can use any restroom they want by court order.

I agree acceptance of behaviours has been pursued. However, the sinfulness question, and the cause of homosexual attractions, are distinct questions. Yes, some adopt the argument that because the inclination is “innate” (in their opinion), to follow it cannot be wrong. Of course, that simply does not follow. I maintain that we don’t need to blindly reject the **possibility **of a biological element to the inclination - as some do out of a misplaced fear that such would make the acts moral. It would not.

 

[edwest2]

I agree acceptance of behaviours has been pursued. However, the sinfulness question, and the cause of homosexual attractions, are distinct questions. Yes, some adopt the argument that because the inclination is “innate” (in their opinion), to follow it cannot be wrong. Of course, that simply does not follow. I maintain that we don’t need to blindly reject the **possibility **of a biological element to the inclination - as some do out of a misplaced fear that such would make the acts moral. It would not.

Fear is not involved. Only coercion. Anyone who is blind will fall into the ditch when led by other blind people that were indoctrinated. On the scientific front, the APA has been fully compromised. It follows the dictates of its users. So, no, there is no “reason” for the question to be posed much less investigated, or answered, except for the predetermined answer.

It all boils down to emotional appeals that cover the truth like a blanket so people can’t see it.

William F. Buckley — ‘Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.’

And that is what the public has been conditioned to - like any effective marketing campaign, it must hit the emotional level.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

Is it not possible that some people experience pleasure in their sexual experiences and then become more or less entrapped by them through lack of exercising resistance to aberrant patterns? We are told that drugs cause changes in brain receptors which, once acquired, never return to normal. Certainly, sexual experience is accompanied by brain chemical changes that are ordinarily short-lived, or so we believe. But, at a point, do they become more persistent?

The problem with this theory is that for most gay young people, especially in the past, their first experience of sexual attraction, often from the age of 9-11, was to other boys of their own sex at the same time that most boys their own age were starting to experience attractions to the opposite sex. In many cases, such gay youth went for 10 years or more, perhaps until coming out in their early 20s, with no sexual experience at all because they didn’t know any other gay people or were afraid to disclose their sexual orientation because of the stigma involved.

The more accepting attitude to gay people which makes it easier for gay youth to come out earlier is still quite recent, within the last 25 years. And 25-30 years ago, gay porn was not so easily available since there was no Internet. What existed was in magazines which were only sold in certain sex shops in big cities and most gay youth did not have easy access to this. So taking this into account, how can SSA that arises in a 10 year old boy who grew up in a normal family in a small town with no openly gay people, no access to gay porn, and who experienced no sexual abuse of any sort be explained by sexual experiences that become persistent?

 

[Rau]

Fear is not involved. Only coercion. …

You seem to be making a different point. The question I am asking is "why do some people reject out of hand the possibility that there is a biological component in SSA?

 

[bobballen_18]

There is no circumstance that could occur where you could convince a right wing Catholic that the studies are valid.

They won’t read them, won’t consider them and will not pay them any mind.

There mind is made up and that is final.

OK. I am what you would probably call a “right wing Catholic”. But I am also someone who experiences same-sex attractions, so I feel like I have a valid perspective (not that someone who doesn’t have SSA objectively has invalid perspectives).

Why does my opinion as a SSA, right wing Catholic not matter? For any study that you could claim to counter my views, I could also provide a counter study. The fact of the matter is, this is the state of the situation with homosexuality today - the situation is unsure. I believe at the very least, one must concede this - that evidence is inconclusive. It is my opinion that there is evidence that strongly suggests homosexuality is a psychological issue which only has hope of being cured through faith in God and in forming of the whole human person - but since this view is discredited through secular views of the gay ideology, this view is also viewed as “radical” and whatnot. Whatever. I know what I want, especially as a SSA individual. My view matters just as much as a SSA individual who wants to be active in the gay lifestyle. No one can fairly convince me otherwise.

 

[Rau]

OK. I am what you would probably call a “right wing Catholic”. But I am also someone who experiences same-sex attractions, so I feel like I have a valid perspective (not that someone who doesn’t have SSA objectively has invalid perspectives).

Why does my opinion as a SSA, right wing Catholic not matter? For any study that you could claim to counter my views, I could also provide a counter study. The fact of the matter is, this is the state of the situation with homosexuality today - the situation is unsure. I believe at the very least, one must concede this - that evidence is inconclusive. It is my opinion that there is evidence that strongly suggests homosexuality is a psychological issue which only has hope of being cured through faith in God and in forming of the whole human person - but since this view is discredited through secular views of the gay ideology, this view is also viewed as “radical” and whatnot. Whatever. I know what I want, especially as a SSA individual. My view matters just as much as a SSA individual who wants to be active in the gay lifestyle. No one can fairly convince me otherwise.

Do you base your opinion on “evidence” out there generally, or on a personal assessment of your own circumstances growing up? I imagine there must be an element of the latter to in some sense validate the evidence to which you refer?

Interesting to note that persons who experience SSA themselves (let alone the rest of us amateur observers) can and do have very different opinions on its causes. You and Thor should compare notes!