Comments

  1. THE QUEEN says

    WELL ALL I’VE GOT TO SAY IS THAT I WISH MICHELLE OBAMA WOULD GET OFF MY FAT ASS WITH HER OBESITY CAMPAIGN AND TELL HER HUSBAND TO GET EVERYBODY SOME MUCH NEEDED JOBS. IT’S THE ECONOMY DAHLINGS!

  2. Nat says

    “In Chambers’ view, then, he was born gay, but it didn’t fit into his “life plan,” an assertion that implicitly contradicts ex-gay and right wing claims that people “choose” to be gay.”

    Not all anti-gay organizations make the claim that people choose to be homosexual. It’s a dangerous simplification to suggest there’s unanimity on it. Many would view it as akin to something like a predisposition to obesity – always present in a person, but subject to treatment.

    Aome anti-gay groups are modifying their claims for the modern era, where the old fable about gays seducing and recruiting new members is seen as patently false by all but the most ignorant. Now it doesn’t matter if people are born gay – they can still deny us rights.

  3. Dan says

    Wait, the pro-change therapy guy compares it to obesity control; while the anti-change therapy guy compares it to winning the lottery? Neither of those is a positive message to me….

  4. Rick says

    “We don’t know what causes homosexuality, we don’t know what causes heterosexuality, and since we don’t what causes it, we don’t know how to change it. There is no science that effectively states [reparative therapy] this can work, this can change.”

    I hope that all of you will tack this quote to your wall. No, one cannot change one’s sexual orientation. True–and these people trying to are both ignorant and despicable.

    On the other hand, the oft-repeated view of some of you that you were “born gay” is also without justification, so you should not only stop claiming it because it sounds (and is) defensive and boxes us into a corner when it comes to encouraging greater freedom of sexual expression for all people, but also because it is just not accurate.

  5. ohplease says

    Of course people are born gay. For heaven’s sake, look at Alan Chambers! Tell me that man wasn’t born gay! Of course he was!

    It’s not “some” people who “oft-repeat” it, it’s such common knowledge that even self-hating Alan Chambers accepts it. It’s not defensive, it’s accurate. It doesn’t box anyone in, it frees everyone — especially those gay kids in the middle of nowhere who otherwise couldn’t understand what’s happening to them.

    And I don’t know about you, but my “freedom of sexual expression” hasn’t been curbed one little bit by accepting the obvious fact that I was born gay.

    If your sexual expression ain’t doing so well, I’m afraid you’ll have to look for another excuse.

  6. Jack says

    While I wouldn’t walk down Mr. Chambers’ path myself, I did think he was sincere. I found no hatred in what he said. Whether or not you agree with his views or not, he does deserve respect for that.

  7. Mark says

    [Bigotry’s] birthplace is the sinister back room of the mind where plots and schemes are hatched for the persecution and oppression of other human beings. –Bayard Rustin

  8. Joseph L. says

    Haha! Yeah, it’s JUST like Weight Watchers. If you limit your daily cock intake, then you’re not gay anymore! Thank geebus for that “points” system. I’m just trying to figure out, is one cock worth more points than another? Does tapping your foot in a restroom with a Republican senator count as one point or two? And how many gay points can I have in a day and still not be gay? Fascinating.

  9. ohplease says

    And, apparently it should also be pointed out, that not knowing what causes sexual orientation obviously doesn’t mean you aren’t born gay. If we don’t know what the cause is, then we don’t know that it doesn’t happen in the womb. If we don’t know what the cause is, then we don’t know that it’s not genetic. If we don’t know what the cause is, then nobody is ruling out possibilities, they’re including them.

    That quote you want people to tack on their wall, simply doesn’t prove the point you’d like to make. No scientist would ever endorse your point. Because no scientist would ever say that it can be proven you were born this way, but that means they also can’t prove that you weren’t.

    Nope, nobody can scientifically prove what causes sexual orientation. So then we’re only left with the evidence of our own experiences. The vast, vast, vast majority of people who experience ANY sexual orientation — which is everyone on Earth — will tell you in an instant that they were born this way. Although nobody can prove why they’re right, it’s obvious that they’re not wrong.

  10. CPT_Doom says

    It is interesting to watch Alan navigate the tightrope of not denying “reparative therapy” but also not making the claim of actually changing sexual orientation. Chambers has said repeatedly that he still “struggles” with “same-sex attraction” and it is pretty clear from this interview that he is not claiming he’s actually changed his orientation – which is the claim Bachmann and other quacks make.

    Chambers also buries the “ex-gay” movement with his line of reasoning, because he is making it explicit that he’s made a religious choice, much like many people have chosen to suppress or direct their sexual impulses for their religion (e.g., priests and nuns who actually remain celibate). But the “ex-gay” movement, along with their allies in the anti-gay hate movement (FRC, AFA, etc) claim that actual change in orientation is not only possible, it is a reason to deny civil rights protections to gays and lesbians. That IMHO is the much more important argument Chambers completely undermines here.

  11. ohplease says

    @Jack, Alan Chambers has dedicated his life to destroying the lives of others. Of course he doesn’t deserve respect for that. And of course his entire life is motivated by self-hate, and it’s his hatred of other people being who he is that defines his entire life.

    Honestly, what other benevolent figure of goodness and light should we respect next? Perhaps John Wayne Gacy? Unlike Chambers, he was not only sincere but also actually free of hate. He just flat-out enjoyed raping and murdering. According to you, it seems, that’s worthy of respect.

  12. Rick says

    @Ohplease People like you equate homosexuality with effeminacy (“For heaven’s sake, look at Alan Chambers! Tell me that man wasn’t born gay!)

    You do so because you have internalized society’s verdict that being attracted to another man makes you unmasculine. And THIS is the real form that self-hatred takes among “gay” men.

    And you try to drag the rest of us down into your sinkhole because you are afraid of facing the prospect of the standards of masculinity that apply to “heterosexual” men being applied to those that are “homosexual” or “bisexual” as well.

    “Gay” is nothing but a cultural construct that did not even exist until the last few decades in the West. It seeks to force individuals to “declare” themselves as belonging to a group on the basis of their sexuality, when such a black-and-white distinction is not appropriate for the sexuality of most people, as Kinsey and others demonstrated.

    And while there might have been a justification for it 30 years ago, today, the effect of it is to discourage the majority of men who have some bisexual tendencies from expressing those–because they don’t want to embrace “gay” and the culture of effeminacy that goes along with it–and it causes many “gay” men to remain in the closet because they don’t want to be associated with such an embarrassing sub-culture that does not reflect their true natures.

    That is why the whole “gay” culture of effeminacy needs to be dismantled and destroyed, including its “born gay” mindset….because until it is, men will never be liberated fully, regardless of their particular sexual orientation

    It is supported neither by science nor by common sense and it has become a deterrent to progress for us all…..

  13. anon says

    The APA’s position since the mid 1970’s (before that they were as bad as anyone else) is that gayness is not a disease and therefore did not require treatment, counseling or curing to eliminate. The only therapy would be alleviate depression or anxiety caused by being gay in a anti-gay world. They need to say that instead of saying that there simply is no cure.

  14. Mikey Mugglesworth says

    @rick;

    Sure, except for the fact that 90% of gay men show no effeminism, and the fact that just because the term ‘gay’ didn’t exist a century ago doesnt mean that people weren’t gay.

    And the fact that science now shows that Obesity is also considered a genetic trait… And some people are … Born That Way

    Jeez… What a bunch of trolls we have here today!

  15. Nat says

    “No scientist would ever endorse your point. Because no scientist would ever say that it can be proven you were born this way, but that means they also can’t prove that you weren’t.”

    I know you think this helps your case, but it really doesn’t.

    Research into sexual orientation is in its infancy; we have a long ways to go before we can say anything determinative.

    But note that there is a difference between stating that one is ‘born’ gay and one chooses to be gay

  16. Walter says

    One thing that doesn’t bother me about Alan Chambers is that he never once claimed to have changed his sexual orientation through his faith. He has, admittedly, simply altered his behavior to not act on his sexual desires. I’m not saying that this is in any way healthy, but it is his decision to make. If he doesn’t want to be in love, or have sex, then, so be it. I really don’t think he’s as dangerous as the Bachmanns or any of the other far right crazies.

  17. Nat says

    “”Gay” is nothing but a cultural construct that did not even exist until the last few decades in the West. It seeks to force individuals to “declare” themselves as belonging to a group on the basis of their sexuality, when such a black-and-white distinction is not appropriate for the sexuality of most people, as Kinsey and others demonstrated.”

    Gender is also a cultural construct; it’s simply older and more elaborate than the modern conception of homosexuality, but it’s as much an artificial product as the ‘gay’ label is.

    I do agree that there are problems in how people align themselves with particular groups, but that’s why diversity of expression matters in the real world. It’s important for the people we interact with to understand that we don’t have universal behavioural traits.

  18. agcons says

    Well now *there’s* a comparison that leaves me scratching my head. For the sake of variety, why don’t I compare heterosexuality with type 2 diabetes?

    Have you taken your orange tablet today, Rick?

  19. GMB says

    PAY ATTENTION. If you could compare the statements from Exodus International over the last twenty years — as I have — you’ll see that they’ve been cautiously, intentionally shifting their tone. They’ve gone from promising that all people are ‘born heterosexual’ to an admission that some people may, in fact, be born this way. And they’ve eliminated comparisons to abusers and pedophiles in favor of kindler, gentler comparisons like overeaters. They’re in a losing battle, and they know it.

  20. flucht17 says

    I could maybe see saying that being ‘gay’ is a social construct, and a relatively modern one. It means that I don’t have to sleep with a woman, ever. Culturally, it provides a place for me, someone who has always, my entire life, had same-sex attractions– maybe being ‘gay’ didn’t exist two hundred years ago, but it’s absurd to pretend that people like me didn’t exist at that time. And RICK, by your own ‘social construct’ paradigm, who is to say effeminate traits are effeminate? aren’t they just traits? by your reasoning, anything that a man feels and expresses is masculine, so, what’s the problem?

    and i bristle at his assertion that there is no justification for saying that we are ‘born gay,’ because that’s just not true. Recent work on sexual orientation in the field of neuroscience– not politically charged sociology– implicates the chemical environment of the womb, and the resulting development of the brain in utero, in influencing the sexuality of homosexual men.

    and most of this feel, and know, this innately. we are born this way.

  21. Dave says

    “In Chambers’ view, then, he was born gay, but it didn’t fit into his “life plan,” an assertion that implicitly contradicts ex-gay and right wing claims that people “choose” to be gay.”

    It really doesn’t. When our opponents say someone “chooses to be gay”, they don’t mean that we aren’t born with same-sex attraction, only that we choose to engage in same-sex behavior and identify as having a same-sex orientation. They simply don’t care who we are attracted to; they assume we can (and should) “overcome” it.

    This is the danger of clinging to an overly simplistic view of sexual orientation that refuses to acknowledge that there’s more to sexuality than just attraction, and also the danger of putting all our eggs in the “born this way” basket. Our opponents assume we’re saying something we aren’t (that we can’t control our behaviour), and we assume they’re saying something they aren’t (that we can control our attractions). Framing the argument this way gets nobody anywhere.

    Instead, we should acknowledge that yes, who we have sex with and what we call ourselves are our choices. We can choose to be like Alan Chambers, force ourselves to have sex with someone we aren’t naturally attracted to, call ourselves “straight”. That choice really does exist.

    But if our attractions are inborn and immutable, does it make sense to adopt behaviours and identities–which we can choose–that conflict with our attractions–which we can’t?

    By acknowledging the whole picture of sexuality–inborn attractions, chosen behaviours and identities–the situation becomes a lot clearer. It’s a lot healthier to have all three aspects of your sexual orientation in sync with one another than to adopt an identity and behavior at war with your attractions.

    Even our opponents understand that no one chooses to whom they are attracted. You don’t choose to be attracted to redheads, or blondes, or brunettes; no more do you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both. They get that.

    We need to focus on the argument that aligning attraction, behaviour, and identity is healthy and natural, rather than quibbling about whether “sexual orientation”, which isn’t a single thing at all, is or isn’t inborn. Acknowledging that our sexual orientation is complex, with no single aspect or origin, doesn’t make our argument weaker. It ensures that our opponents are hearing what we mean to say, rather than what they choose to hear.

  22. Rick says

    “Gender is also a cultural construct; it’s simply older and more elaborate than the modern conception of homosexuality, but it’s as much an artificial product as the ‘gay’ label is.”

    I cannot ever help but laugh out loud when I encounter the notion that gender is a “construct”. Dude, men have penises and big muscles and more testosterone and different cognitive strengths and weaknesses and differ in all kinds of ways from women…..and those differences transcend culture. Men have been warriors and women have been nurturers throughout history in every society that has ever existed and all of those societies INDEPENDENTLY developed that way, despite having been totally isolated from each other for millenia. Because it was driven by natural forces.

    Feminism seeks to deny nature and the result you are seeing in the West is all kinds of social dysfunction that has resulted from its effects–broken families, birth rates that have fallen below replacement level, levels of stress for both genders at historical highs, children that are failing academically and otherwise.

    “Gay” men bought into feminism decades ago because they erroneously believed that the only way they could ever be accepted was to destroy masculinity (even as they worshipped it and were deeply titillated by it)….and feminists were all too happy to enlist their support because their own goal was to weaken men in such a way that they could empower women.

    I guess their notion was that they and straight women would rule the world together and straight men would just become their servants (LOL).

    They had been so convinced of their own inherent lack of masculinity that that was really the only way out that they saw. It never occurred to them that one could eradicate homophobia without denigrating masculinity and that homosexuality could be accommodated by a fully-masculine male culture……despite the fact that the only examples in history of homosexuality being accepted and respected were precisely those in which masculinity and homosexuality were not considered mutually exclusive.

    Those who continue to see feminists as the friends of gay men (and feminism as a philosophy that will benefit gay men) are badly misguided, in my opinion…….an entirely new approach is called for in the 21st century, one that focuses on liberating all men, not destroying their very essence (which is impossible to do anyway)

  23. Rick says

    @Dave Exceptionally well-stated. People are afraid of ambiguity because it can be threatening–when ambiguity exists, you have to navigate interpersonal relationships much more carefully than you do when everyone fits neatly into a box and that can lead to a lot less personal security.

    I think this is one reason people who are genuinely bisexual generate so much hostility from just about everybody…..they have options that someone who is “gay” or “straight” don’t have and that gives them a certain amount of power in a relationship that the other party does not have. And this is why so many women find it so much more devastating when their husband or boyfriend “cheats” on them with a man than when he “cheats” on them with another woman…..the latter they can at least understand and compete with but the former is completely beyond either their understanding or their control.

    So it should not be surprising if many “gay” people try to hold on to the black-and-white paradigm just as a lot of “straight” people will.

    I personally feel that allowing people to be truly free to express themselves however it suits them would be tremendously liberating and exciting–I guess part of the reason I do is that so many men that I have been attracted to over the years and who I knew were at least bisexual retreated into the “I’m not gay” space when push came to shove…….but also because, more objectively speaking, how could people not be healthier and happier if they do not have artificial constraints being placed on their sexual activities and their emotional lives?

    Seems like a no-brainer to me, but again, I can see why some people are deeply threatened by the idea…..

  24. Josh says

    I compare ex-sexuality to anorexia. Look at this man. He was born in 1972 and looks like he’s a very starved 55. I agree with Dave, I made a rational self-loving choice to align my identity and behaviors with my attractions. Those who don’t do so …add an immense burden of struggle to an already difficult life.

  25. drdanfee says

    I have no doubt that Mr. Chambers presents himself sincerely; however that is not exactly the burning core question. I note for the public record that Mr. Chambers completely sidestepped the journalist’s question about the gruesome damages done when equally sincere people (usually people of some faith, by the way? … and often just starting out in young adult life?) utterly fail to win the lottery of exgay/reparative services.

    Hat tip to Dr. Drescher for this pertinent analogy.

    Until Mr. Chambers accepts a modicum of clear, overt human ethical responsibility for the majority of deeply hurt exgay consumers who fail, have failed, and no doubt will continue to fail? Chambers is encouraging us all to be intentionally narrow-minded – is there such a thing as urging us all to be narrow-hearted? one wonders listening to Chambers? – as well as of course, straight?

    I must also comment on his systemic disclaimer that he is not targeting LGBT folks in particular; they just happen to fall into his exgay crosshairs because they fall outside of being married straights who fit inside his definition of being Christian. Sorry, Mr. C., your moral system is not as comprehensively and common sense ethical as it claims to be, since it establishes a closed set up that discovers LGBT folks to be the sinners the system presumes them to be at the start of inquiry.

    Plus – note this Mr. Chambers? – LGBT sinners are NOT at all like straight sinners in your closed pseudo-moral system. Why not? Simply because no straight sinner is ever, ever, ever asked or told to dramatically change sexual orientation (while of course we all know, LGBT folks are always told to change their sexual orientation?).

    Basically, then Mr. C., we must dig deeper into what you say, only to realize that you are implying that you simply do not credit any of the empirical information that tells us about sexual orientation variance; you leave the presumptive foundations open to an old flat earth legacy notion that simply everybody is born straight, but some pitiful people for unknown reasons experience LGBT aspects of their personality, instead of the preferred nothing but straight ideals.

    Even for believers, marriage is not magic, but a calling? Saying, I do, does not magically transform anybody from immoral to moral. Witness the horrid marital wounds of spousal abuse, spousal rape, child neglect, child abuse, and similar? All of those suffering people said the magical, I do. Why doesn’t Mr. C. ask those people to change their sexual orientation?

    I also note that Mr. Chambers backed off from saying that people categorically could NOT follow Jesus due to same gender love or sexual orientation; though he riled up again about how categorically sinful any and all attraction/pairbonding inner life/relationships are.

    Flat earth readings of scripture about LGBT folks do nobody any good service?

    Is Mr. Chambers softening, despite himself? One may wish it so, even pray it be so. Especially if he can get Exodus affiliated services or programs to take common sense ethical responsibility for providing remedial care to all the folks who fail? Where else but exgay services would we blame people for failing our lottery-loaded odds of getting a desirable outcome?

    Should we also dump cancer chemo folks who fail to get ideal outcomes, on the streets, summarily, just like Exodus affiliated services/programs dump all the ex-exgay failures? Don’t advise this habit, let alone tag it as ethical.

    Alas, Lord have mercy.

  26. truthteller says

    RICK, your whole post reeks of self-hatred!

    “That is why the whole “gay” culture of effeminacy needs to be dismantled and destroyed, including its “born gay” mindset….because until it is, men will never be liberated fully, regardless of their particular sexual orientation.”

    It is clear to me, from reading your post, that you have internalized shame and misogyny. The fact of the matter is that some men are more effeminate than others and I find nothing shameful in that. It is no threat to my masculinity since it does not depend on the behavior of others. I am my own man and I am not defined by what others do.

    Your position is identical to the “reparative-therapy” thugs. You both want to obliterate those who push triggers in you: “the whole “gay” culture of effeminacy needs to be dismantled and destroyed, including its “born gay” mindset….”

    You and the anti-gay bigots want to destroy those who are different from you because you perceive them to be a threat to your own masculinity. You imply they stop other’s from expressing their “true natures” and force them to remain in the closet. What a weak and coward bunch of men those are. You are casting them and yourself as victims…man up!

    The fact that a gay man may be effeminate does not threaten your masculinity anymore than two gay men getting married threatens your neighbors’ marriage. And the fact that your post is ignorant and self-hating does not reflect on me. It reflects on you alone.

  27. truthteller says

    RICK, Rick, Rick.

    “Men have been warriors and women have been nurturers throughout history in every society that has ever existed and all of those societies INDEPENDENTLY developed that way, despite having been totally isolated from each other for millenia. Because it was driven by natural forces.”

    Exempt when they haven’t:
    Queen Samsi (Shamsi) of Arabia, 732 B.C.
    The Trung Sisters, A.D. 40
    Queen Zenobia, 3rd century
    Queen Boudicca, A.D.60-61
    Queen Artemisia, Greco-Persian wars.
    Queen Tomyris whose army killed King Cyrus and defeated his kingdom…

    And don’t forget the women warriors of the amazon. In fact women developed agriculture and in many societies they do the labor while the men stay at home.

    You are one twisted open-faucet of ignorance.

  28. flucht17 says

    rick’s testosterone-fuelled, misogynistic warrior fantasy would make it ok for the bi and bi-curious men he wants to sleep with to stay with him instead of forming their meaningful relationships with women. He also denigrates those relationships: men who “cheat” on their female partners are not really doing anything wrong, because the women are less-than.

    he sees his preferred partners being turned off by the possibility of association with effeminate men, with “gays.”

    but the “it’s cool dude, gay, bi and straight don’t exist, we just like cock” worldview is just not an incredibly accurate model of reality. the reality is, being gay is more than just being same-sex attracted, but that’s also not to say that everything beyond that attraction isn’t also inherent. for most gay guys, it is.

    rick, while i know you don’t think that you’re “gay,” I would also venture that you aren’t gay, either. Because if you were, you would sympathise with the interplay of masculinity and femininity in the gay psyche.

  29. GregV says

    Rick’s stereotyped definition of men and women reminds me of a kid I knew (as a kid myself) who told me that the difference is that “girls have long hair and boys have short hair.” When I pointed to our short-haired classmate Susan, he was suddenly very confused.

  30. Randy says

    We could do better than to have Drescher on our side.

    I wish someone would not only talk about how it’s not possible to force a change, but start talking about how unethical it would be to do this, even if it were simple and low risk.

    The comparison of becoming straight to winning the lottery isn’t exactly delightful to hear either. It basically casts gay people as miserable people just not lucky enough to be straight. Seriously, this is why we need more gay sex in the movies. Gay love is beautiful to see, and as there are fewer gay people in the world, is actually the true lottery-winner.

  31. Conversion therapy anyone? says

    I think it is high time for the gay community to take the gloves off and start converting straight men to gayness. If it’s a choice we should make it easy for them to choose by extolling the advantages of gayness. Take them out, show them a good time and then off to bed!

  32. Rin says

    @Rick,

    that’s absolutely not true. Unless you have some gay creationist version of how the world came into existence you would see that heterosexuality is an evolutionary tool to propagate a species. Homosexuality MAY be an adaption due to overpopulation or some other necessary reason, but there IS a scientific explanation for it. It’s just unknown to us and will be unknown to us for some time because of the politics involved in studying this subject.

    To say there is no reason for ovaries, the uterus, a penis, sperm…is ridiculous and unscientific. It’s basic biology for those species that don’t “bud” or have other asexual reproduction.

    Saying that heterosexuality is not something that Nature determined is just politics. It is not wrong to have gay sex, be gay, do whatever you want with the body you have or to feel those inclinations. That’s what people should push–that we’re more than evolutionary victims.

    Gay marriage, gay rights, gay people can be born gay or choose to be gay for all I care. If you are happy and life is great, I’m happy for you. It doesn’t matter to me how you got to that point.

    @Rick, curious tho…you keep speaking of “loosening the restrictions” of sexual orientation. Does that mean you are going to go fishing anytime soon? Would you loosen your restrictions and have sex with women?

    Are you going to lead the pack on sexual ambiguity?

  33. Evan says

    Chambers was not half defensive was he? He is admitting that homosexuality is a permanent feature of his own life and the lives of others. This is not as hard-line as the NARTH position – yet NARTH is not only a Christian organisation. Many Roman Catholic priests have tried to follow the line of thinking of Chambers and we see the fallout from that every week. Memo to Chambers: If you are a homosexual, practising or non-practising makes little real difference. Remember the teaching of Christ – to lust after a woman is already the equivalent of adultery. (Matthew 5:28) The parallels for the homosexual are obvious, BUT only if you take the word of Christ as relevant to your life!

  34. Evan says

    ” Should we go after Weight Watchers and tell them ‘Don’t say that there’s anything beyond obesity’ for people who are struggling with obesity and want an alternative to that? ”

    The comparison is completely inappropriate. Obesity is not an identity in the way that homosexuality is. I am using Weight Watchers programme now and through their education and instruction, finding it quite easy to lose some weight. I am addressing a real physical problem – cholesterol – on medical advice.

    We could talk about the obessive disorders – anorexia and bulemia – but homosexuality and heterosexuality are not an addictions or an obessions like those.

    Memo to Chambers: Being obese is about lifestyle and sexuality is about identity – learn the difference.

  35. Gigi says

    It’s dangerous to tell people not to respect their faith first ‘cuz it’s un-American?!?! This guy is such a turd. When’s he gonna get caught in the bushes with George Michael?

  36. Rin says

    Gender is not a construct. In the 1970s with various, well-intended equality movements it was called that and certain behavioral protocols were created with specific intentions to “disprove” previous gender “characteristics” but those same studies have been redone in a less slanted way and with different results.

    Scientists (not psychologists), but research scientists have also done study after study on chemicals, body construct, brain patterns etc to demonstrate why “feminine” behavior and “masculine” behavior exists.

    If this were “all in your head” then transgender people would not need hormone therapy, they could just walk around in dresses all day or suits. If this was a construct then an absence of testosterone or estrogen would not cause male and female menopause and all the symptoms therein.

    I find it incredibly ironic that all of the so-called progressive, scientific atheists would create a new, non-scientific dogma purely for social protections. That is exactly how religion got its foothold.

    There is nothing wrong with women acting “feminine” or to say that it is “Nature”. Estrogen does certain things. Women’s brains work certain ways. Saying that does not mean that women can’t be presidents, warriors, etc.

    NOR does saying men act a certain way because of their chemicals and brain patterns prevent them from being great, nurturing parents.

    There are even studies that get shoved under the table about why some gay men have effeminate traits and, yes, it has to do with how their brain routes information.

    We shouldn’t be afraid of these things, or try to downplay them out of some fear of social stagnation.

    Your sexual preference has nothing to do with your gender, and quite honestly who really cares why anyone is attracted to anyone else?

    If you are happy, if you are living your life to its fullest…I don’t think it matters if you have a martian implant that makes you like someone of the same sex. Live in such a way that makes you happy and you hurt no one else.

  37. Tyron says

    You don’t suppose that Chambers was pointing a finger at the obese Marcus Bachmann when he brought up Weight Watchers do you? And, I’m not sure I’d use Weight Watchers as an example of how to change the behavior of people because for the majority of people attending Weight Watchers their success in only temporary – they return, for whatever reason, to the same habits and, if you will, lifestyle that created their weight issues in the first place. Thus, Weight Watchers is about as successful as ex-gay therapy.

  38. says

    You’re not born gay. You are, however, born a homosexual. You have to EARN being gay. You have to claim it. You have to embrace it.

    Chambers and Marcus Bachmann are not gay. They’re homosexuals. There’s a difference.

    They don’t have the courage and integrity to be gay.

    Homosexuality exists in so many different species. It has existed, in humans, in every type of family and family dynamic, religious group, culture, ethnic group, country, city, continent, island, all over the world.

    There are ZERO external socializing factors that would “make one a homosexual” – if there were any we’d have found them by now.

    And what, pray tells, makes some animals gay? Did that lion have an absentee father and a smothering mother? Was that little goose molested by a duck? Did the orangutan spend too much time playing with his sisters?

    *yawn*

  39. SteveDenver says

    Does this Weight Watchers comparison mean that certain sexual practices have “points,” and that gay sex has higher points than bland and tasteless heterosexual sex, and I can cheat every now and then, and still stay on the plan? SCORE!

  40. Jack says

    The fact that anyone would think that God cares about who they love is seriously misguided. The Bible is the ‘inspired’ word of God (aka: things some men wrote a long time ago). God has been around longer than the conventions set up by ancient and modern society. Frankly, I don’t think God cares who we love and to waste your life fighting something that is as natural as rain is madness. This guy is living in an illusion of ‘morality’. I’m sad to think he will never know the joy of falling in love with his husband over and over again. Also, to be gay is not to be separate from God.

Leave A Reply