Monday, December 07, 2009

And something fun for our local Eagle Forum.

Hi everyone,

I know the Eagle Forum believes that sexual preference is a choice so, for them, the universe provide this: Gay No More?


Anonymous said...

"There is no such thing as atheist, agnostic or non-religious groups trying to make gay people straight. Evangelical Christians, especially, tend to be heavily involved in this movement."

this was the point where I realized that this guy has zero credibility.

studies in the scientifc community about homosexual conversion have nothing to do with organized religion.

and their have BEEN scientific studies to see if homosexuals can be converted since AT LEAST (my hunch is this goes all the way back to Freud)the 1960's. Check out this link:

Don't worry about it's veracity;
it is the same website you cited a few blogs down, a couple of days ago.

This writer strikes me not only as biased against religion, but woefully unaware of the SCIENTIFIC, atheist, and agnostic establishment that spearheaded this "movement."

Mpeterson said...

lol... so when doctors who, during the 60's, still often believed being Gay was a psychic disorder feed them LSD and put them through an analytic ringer, nearly 50% (without a specification of possible standard error) show "some" indications of effectiveness? The MAPS data was interested primarily in the useful effects of psychotropic drugs on persistent neurosis, but what if being gay isn't a neurosis?

And you're quite wrong. The only people with a stake in demonstrating that homosexual behaviour is a choice are in the fundamentalist Christian community. QED.

Other groups, if they actually are interested, may well be hold overs from the same kinds of psychoanalytic traditions that believed autism was a psychological condition caused by the Mother.

Um... Journey to Manhood is a Scientific study?

But do crack open the scientific studies on this with dates after 1975 and I'll post 'em.

Anonymous said...

hey, come on now, they put a man to the moon in the 60's already.

as far as the studies I cited go;
how can I respond when I did not read any of it?()

(back atcha babe; only cause i love ya LOL.)

Anonymous said...

So I guess my bisexual friend doesn't count in your book, then.
He is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't,right? I mean, it is clear his whimsy, for lack of a better term, does not fit into your rigid axiomatic.

That kind of blanket damnation of someones sexuality is pretty judgemental, esp. coming from someone who claims they are standing against Evangelical Puritanical Christians.

And, your critique of "psychoanalytic traditions" betrays that you are averse to it, seeing it as outdated. So it seems, and is, disingenuous when you rely on the very Freudian notion of repressed psychosexual urges to make your case for the binary of hetero/homo.

It would be the same as if you, for example, cited something and denied the veracity of it's content at the same time.

This is the whole crux of what is wrong with the structure of representation, determination, judgement, and analogy that is the hallmark of Plato, Socrates, Greek thought. This is the binary dialectic of categorization (i.e. labelling) and classification upon which Western scientific "reason" is built on, all the way up to the categorical imperative, unfortunately.

Mpeterson said...

Wow, Anonymous 2, nice one. But I can't tell if you're responding to me or the other Anonymous.

I actually agree with most of what you've said so I'm not sure how posting this note about the futility of attempting gender reassignment (something which presupposes the very binary conceptual framework you're criticizing) would offend you. That was not my intent. I intended simply to note the fundamentalists blinkers required to make something like a psycho-analytic gender reassignment even plausible.

And you're quite right, I think, about including the categorical imperative in this tendency -- my training, and philosophical preferences run between Hegel and Kierkegaard, and I agree with GWF that Kant's antinomies were the most important discovery in the history of philosophy so, I'd say that, conceptually speaking, the binary frame of gender identity has to be sublated to be coherent.

But if you want to drag Plato into this, what do you make of his subversive critique of Athenian homoeroticism in the Republic and Symposium?

Anonymous said...

Why are Christians so interested in who I'm fucking?

John Jost said...

@Anonymous: Hmm... 'cause they're not?

Anonymous said...

...actually,we do have sects.
Lot of 'em.