I’ve got a dare for you, Consi:
Make a surprise visit to Haggard’s residence. Hide in the bushes and when he comes out (no pun intended) come on to him. If he turns you down you win. But something tells me he won’t and I’ll win.

Ya gotta ask yourself one thing: How much faith do you really have that his conversion took?

if one standard is good for homosexuals ..., then that same standard applies to those that claim they were able to change.

Normally I’d agree - most outa-the-closet gays are honest about their sexuality.
But Ted* Haggard was a scamming liar and is still a scamming liar.
Let’s face it - this gay-hating mongrel had it all: respected, loved & admired by his peers, minions and thralls, beautiful wife and kids, didn’t have to get an honest job cos his main scam was bringing in Buku dollars ... and he risks it all on something that’s not part of his ‘character’.
Next you’ll be telling me Anna Nicole Smith is alive and well and living with Elvis’ brother in the Bahamas.

And you John, are the monkey with the spray can

Love it. 

Ted* - Oz’s best known ’awthor‘ refers to the vagina as a ted - works for a Haggard too. 

Consi writes…

The same is equally true with substance abusers. So, should we write off all the addicts?  I think not, nor would you I suspect.  Yet, here you have a double standard.

First, show me the substance abuser who has overcome that addiction in three weeks as Haggard claims he’s managed to do with his homosexuality. Second, not all people who abuse substances are inherently prone to substance abuse. Some are just stupid.

And I’m not writing Haggard off. I think the man should come to grips with his nature and move forward with his life, not try to shove his homosexuality behind a facade and try to be something he isn’t.

You see, simple folk like myself believe that if one standard is good for homosexuals proclaiming that they should be believed regarding their claims that they were born homosexual, then that same standard applies to those that claim they were able to change.

The difference here is that there’s actually some scientific evidence backing that claim up as opposed to the little to no evidence that three weeks of Christian-focused therapy in any way can “cure” someone of being gay.

Brock:  Hide in the bushes and when he comes out (no pun intended) come on to him. If he turns you down you win

Oh how I do love prop bets and this one is tantalizing.  Moreover, I must say that I’m truly touched that built into the prop is the assumption that all gay men would find me simply irrestible. Thank you for the compliment. 

If not for the minor detail of potential trespass, attempted battery, battery and stalking charges, any of which if filed I’d have to report to an association that I belong to, I would jump all over this.  In light of the foregoing though, I must respectfully pass on this prop bet.

First, show me the substance abuser who has overcome that addiction in three weeks as Haggard claims he’s managed to do with his homosexuality. Second, not all people who abuse substances are inherently prone to substance abuse.

I’m not sure how the second relates to my comment about failed substance abuse treatment for substance abusers.  That aside, it is my understanding that Haggard will continue to undergo further treatment as part of his recovery.  It was my understanding that like the recovering addict that proclaims themself clean (and receives standing ovations for even a day clean) Haggard is proclaiming himself heterosexual.  The distinctions you are making are not substantive ones. 

The difference here is that there’s actually some scientific evidence backing that claim up as opposed to the little to no evidence that three weeks of Christian-focused therapy in any way can “cure” someone of being gay.

My statement that drew this remark was really directed at Brock and idm.  They have both argued that we should give credence to individual statements made by gay men that are active within the gay community about the nature of homosexuality, while at the same time arguing that we should disregard those that former members of the gay community that are engaged in a heterosexual lifestyle.  The reasoning behind their arguments was not that scientific evidence supported either side.  The argument was simply an impassioned plea for me to give credence to what they said personally about their own sexuality and those gay men that have made similar statements. 

It is an emotionally compelling argument.  Frankly, it is difficult for me to disregard such emotionally evocative arguments.  However, to do as they plead does require a double standard.  As special as I believe Brock is I don’t think anybody should get a separate standard.

As regards scientific evidence for being born homosexual, I remain very skeptical.  So should you.  As the thread on twin studies pointedly revealed, the evidence does not support a genetic basis for homosexuality.  There is precious little evidence and much speculation (See your article for good examples of speculation based on too few facts) about biological causation.  The question right now remains very much up in the air with none of the theories, familial or biological, even being able to come remotely close to meeting the standard of a preponderance of the evidence.  Accordingly, you are making assumptions about the evidence based on your bias in favor of what you think the right theory of explanation may be. 

That bias carries over into your assessment of the veracity of those who proclaim themselves to be recovering homosexuals.  So it matters not that the subject is Haggard.

Why are the spacing and margins on my posts screwy now?

Why are the spacing and margins on my posts screwy now?

Perhaps even the machine shows disdain on your view on homosexuality.

OUCH! 

Consi, I am all for your call for skepticism.  For example, I’m rather skeptical of the whole reparative therapy movement, which can now spuriously claim Haggard as a success story.  Why?  Simply because it has been discredited by most mental health professional associations and societies .

As regards scientific evidence for being born homosexual, you should remain skeptical until the evidence is in. As should we all.  In the absence of clear evidence, there’s no reason to fall into the false dichotomy that personal lifestyle choice is the only option available barring genetic causation of homosexuality.

While you’re quite correct that twin studies reveal no demonstrable genetic cause for homosexuality, they apparently indicate that genetics play a role in the development of sexual orientation.  In addition, there may be additional biological factors that potentially play a role in the development of sexual orientation, including prenatal hormone exposure, and birth order and maternal linkage. 

You’re right - the science isn’t in. In lieu of that, and my own experience of having never chosen a heterosexual lifestyle, I have no reason to dismiss my homosexual friends’ and family members’ claims that they have never made a similar choice.  That’s where that skepticism comes in handy - we go where the data leads, and recognize that beyond that is simply conjecture and wishful thinking.  That is, of course, until the data are updated.

Cheers

Consi: As the thread on twin studies pointedly revealed, the evidence does not support a genetic basis for homosexuality.

Very clever, mate, and true ... but only partially true.
What it did quite pointedly reveal was:
1. Shelley should have heeded my warning.
2. On current, available, scientific evidence, it would have been easier to prove the non-existence of which ever god you’re currently enthralled by or enamoured with.
3. There was no evidential bias towards any cause for the basis of homosexuality.
But the fact remains that it occurs.
Now, as neither LH, Brock, DoF, IDM, Ulfrekr, Les nor I (we don’t know about you cos you won’t cum outa the closet) can recall ever having made a conscious choice as to which way we’d jump, sexually, we are left with a conundrum: How was it or What, decided it for us?
If you believe in god you’d have to say: Goddidit … which leads to:
Why the fuck did he do that? Or …
What did I do to deserve my good luck (that I didn’t have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune … sorry Shaky) but definitely,
What an arsehole. 

And what Michael said. 
Especially the bit about mental retards’ desire to see Homosexuality as a mental disorder and its needing Reparative Therapy.
I don’t wonder they realise this brain dead attitude is fertile ground for men, with even less mental acumen, who believe bashing or killing a gay just makes their fucking day.

If it is a choice, how do societies that have strong taboos on gay behaviour manage to bring gays into the world.

Les: Actually my statement is based on the fact that there are plenty of people who have been through the same so-called therapy sessions that Haggard went through that are still, surprise, quite gay despite their desires to be otherwise.

Consi: The same is equally true with substance abusers. So, should we write off all the addicts?  I think not, nor would you I suspect.  Yet, here you have a double standard.

Substance abusers who go through rehab are still addicts, they are just not currently taking drugs.  An alcoholic will always be an alcoholic even though they have stopped drinking—at least for now.  A homophobic faggot who has been through reparative therapy is still a faggot even though he hasn’t sucked a dick in a while.

LH: Perhaps even the machine shows disdain on your [Consi’s] view on homosexuality.

Like most of you, I regard the idea that homosexuality is purely a choice to be, at best, wholly misguided, and, at worst, a convenient expedient for bigotry, persecution, and even murder. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that there is no overarching explanation for homosexuality, that it varies from individual to individual, but that generally speaking it results from a combination of biological and environmental forces.

So what’s the deal with Consi? Is he a homophobe? I wouldn’t say so at this point, simply because I don’t think I have enough information with which to do so. He’s certainly not homophobic in a Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson sense. I have noticed some recurring themes with his comments on this topic, though. It seems clear to me at this point that he simply does not want for there to be a biological explanation for homosexuality. We all know that it’s futile to try convincing someone of that which he refuses to be convinced. My only input would be what I always tell creationists who dismiss evidence for evolution out of hand: not wanting something to be true does not make it untrue.

You’re right - the science isn’t in. In lieu of that, and my own experience of having never chosen a heterosexual lifestyle, I have no reason to dismiss my homosexual friends’ and family members’ claims that they have never made a similar choice.

There are certainly folks who know honest upstanding men that say that they engaged in homsexual acts and are now heterosexual.  I’m sure in light of that knowledge you understand why they would be inclined to take the exact opposite position as yours, yet went through the exact same process: Examined inconclusive studies that send wildly mixed signals, turned to those they know, believed those they know with a track record of honesty.  That is exactly what you did, right?

Sadie:

My only input would be what I always tell creationists who dismiss evidence for evolution out of hand: not wanting something to be true does not make it untrue.

I agree with your statements to creationists.  Yet, the forced analogy between a topic where the evidence is clear beyond a reasonable doubt and one in which the evidence is muddy, muddled, oft times poorly conducted, and the results are mixed is not apt. 

Nevertheless,

for being you.

Nevertheless,   for being you.

DC; and sometime I’m wrong.

I give that a 6.5.
Ida given anyone else a 5 but seeing as it’s so extraordinarily outa character for Consi ...

Consi: Yet, the forced analogy between a topic where the evidence is clear beyond a reasonable doubt and one in which the evidence is muddy, muddled, oft times poorly conducted, and the results are mixed is not apt. 

Well, I kind of figure that any evidence at all (especially when it is backed up by common sense) is better than the complete nonexistence of evidence that suggests that homosexuality is purely a choice.

LuckyJohn: Ida given anyone else a 5 but seeing as it’s so extraordinarily outa character for Consi ... 

No kidding. Consi flirting? With me? I think we’ve stumbled onto a dimension not of sight or sound but of mind.     

Sadie: No kidding. Consi flirting? With me? I think we’ve stumbled onto a dimension not of sight or sound but of mind.

Just indicative of good taste on his part, darling. I’m always more suprised when someone isn’t flirting with you.

Consi: As the thread on twin studies pointedly revealed, the evidence does not support a genetic basis for homosexuality.

LJ:There was no evidential bias towards any cause for the basis of homosexuality.
But the fact remains that it occurs.

I know this is going to annoy people, but the best annology I can come up with remains food. Sexual preference is, no matter important it is, still a taste. Why do we aquire any taste? Why do I like pizza? Why do I not like steak? Who knows?

But I do know that if you put me through re-education, you might find all sorts of ways to convince me to stop eating pizza. You might convince me that it is bad for me, or that it’s somehow wrong to eat it. But no amount of re-education is going to change the fact that when I put it in my mouth, it tastes good to me.

Re-education may convince some people that having sex with another person of the same gender is bad, it may help them abstain, but it has nothing to do with the basic taste.

Which makes the whole nature versus nurture (and I personally think it’s a bit of both and more complicated than either) completely irrelevant.

(I’m at work and far too lazy to be bothered with a spell check right now, so please forgive any errors above.)

Sexual preference is MUCH stronger than food preference.  It is more like handedness, most people are right handed, some are left handed, and a few are ambidextrous.

My arguement doesn’t really have anything to do with the STRENGTH of the taste, just that it is a taste. I agree with you, sexual preference is much stronger than taste for food.

I dodn’t think handedness makes as good an analogy as there’s no like/dislike factor, it just is.

Aaahh, yeah - taste - I never thought of it that way.
The only thing sexual preference equates with in handedness is that the preference can’t be changed.
Consi, I didn’t say that left-handed people can’t be taught to write with the right [sic] hand.

For that matter, my brother has weird handedness issues - he bats left, he throws right, he writes with either hand and eats with his left. For all that though, I know and he knows he’s really left-handed and pretty much everything else has been people trying to force him to do things their way or no way at all over the years and getting into a habit. Even though he sometimes appears ambidextrous or even right-handed, it’s all just habit, ruse, and training. If my brother growing up could unconsciously go, “Man, being left-handed is inconvenient and everyone expects me to use my right hand,” and start using his right hand then I’m not going to dismiss the notion of people trying to “get over” their innate homosexuality seeing how the social stigma is a lot harsher than merely bumping elbows while seated at dinner.

All analogies suck.  Food tastes, like thinking that eating bugs is disgusting, are acquired preferences; sexual orientation, like handedness, just is—and is not a preference. 

Tastes in food can change over time, and for bisexuals, sexual preference can be flexible.

For gays, sexual orientation dictates their preference. Like handedness, the preference can not changed.  Sure, social pressures can force gays to believe that they must have sex with women, and can force a lefty to eat with their right hand—in neither case is the sexual orientation or handedness changed.

All analogies suck

Like a toothless hooker?

All analogies suck

Like a toothless hooker?

I never had a toothless hooker.  I once had a hockey player who had all of his front teeth knocked out— and he sucked very well.

Just a simple farm boy that wanted to pimp you a bit.

Are you from rural PA Consi? My dad is, and he’s the only other person I’ve ever heard use “pimp” in that context.

In any case, I find the notion that Haggard is straight now laughable. If his entire lifestyle before his outing wasn’t enough incentive for him to “become” straight, what could have possibly transpired in a mere 3 weeks that would be more convincing? I mean, short of intense psychological and physical torture and conditioning, what force could possibly...oh, wait. Nevermind. Maybe he really isn’t capable of acting on his gayness any more.

Still wouldn’t make him straight though.