(Im)mutability of Same Gender Attraction
 

It occurs to me that one of the important sub-themes of the whole discussion on Same-Sex marriage is the degree to which same-sex attraction is mutable. If same-gender attraction cannot be avoided or overcome (and not merely unhealthily repressed in a manner that causes severe anguish to one who experiences it), then to resist it is senseless. If all who are homosexual are, were, and ever will be homosexual in spite of any pressure or influence to the contrary, there's no sense fighting it.

But as I stop to think about it, I can't recall reading any studies claiming either mutability or immutability of same gender attraction. I've read plenty of studies that suggest genetic predisposition, but not whether environmental factors contribute. Are any readers here aware of any studies that suggest the either mutability or immutability of same gender attraction? If so, cite here, please. I'd be interested to see which side of the coin the inquiries suggest is correct.

And, if I may, I would kindly request that we leave most of the bickering that characterizes the other threads on this matter there, and reserve this particular line of thought for honest and thoughtful evaluation. Let the evidence itself speak its own volumes without interruption.

Thank you.

Really? Nobody has anything to say on this one?

Gays don't choose to be gay. This is not a controversial point among reasoning people. For starters, why would they? Even the Catholic Church has said in an encyclical that the desire to make love to a same sex partner is not a sin. Mormons don't even have the spine to call it a choice.

This is such an old, well trod issue, and the evidence and common sense is so overwhelmingly one sided, probably no one cares to discuss this with you. I don't care to and don't plan to beyond this. The issue is open and shut. I'm amazed that the immutability/mutability issue just occurred to you.

P.S., it's not a "sub-theme." It's the whole ball game. It's why now once again the LDS Church is DEAD WRONG!

Good argument, SU. "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me is a judgmental imbecile."

What about those (and they do exist) who claim to have been gay, but say they are no longer? I'm sure SU will let us know that all of them are simply bowing to pressure and are lying, just to find acceptance. The all-knowing SU knows their thoughts and emotions, and has spoken. The thinking is done. Follow the great SU! (the singing begins - "Follow the prophet, ...he knows the way!")

better question: does the Mormon church want gay men to get married to straight women?

I think the obvioius answer is "yes they do".

...

Indy that's why no one has engaged him. He hasn't asked smart questions, and he has put limitations that while they say "no bickering" what they really mean is "no controversy, and non disagreement."

It's a legitimate question, and it goes to the so-called mutability question.

The church would have a gay man marry a straight woman if it is possible he can "fake" his way through it and have sex from time to time and be monogamous. Yet I doubt there is a single person here who would have his daughter marry such a person.

And there is the disconnect.

I don't see that as the key issue. It's impossible to live a sinless life, yet that is what we are asked to do. Same diff...no?

Without arguing labels about gay men and straight women, perhaps somebody can look it up, but the recent discussions reject your premise, gay men are encouraged to stay celibate, not to marry straight women. Can you find contrary evidence.

I think the church would argue that a man that can marry a woman and conceive a child with her is not gay.

There are likely thousands of gay men married in the temple to straight women in the church.

Is there a difference in the mutability of sexual orientation in women compared to men?

Yes. Some go from liking to men and desiring them, to hating them and wanting to have nothing to do with men. They're called divorcees.

Truth be told there isn't a lot of evidence either way on the choice question, except for the testimony of millions upon millions of homosexuals, with virtually no contradiction or dissent. Why isn't that good enough? There is also common sense: why would someome choose to be gay? I agreed with Waters when he said if he could choose sexual preference for his children he would choose straight, for no other reason than that a straight's life is easier than a gay's.

I saw a news story where it highlighted several gays who claimed they successfully changed their orientation. It would be interesting to see how many people out there actually claim this and whether or not the orientation change has "stuck" over the long term and what brought about that orientation change.

what does that mean? If you are able to marry and impregnate your wife, does that mean your orientation changed from gay to straight?

What you are citing was a much hotter topic about 7 years ago. I've heard much less about it since. I think it's a dying movement.

Would YOU call it a success if your straight daughter married a gay man? I doubt it.

What does it mean? I don't know.

They claimed they no longer were sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Were they honest? I don't know.

Did the change in sexual attraction last? I don't know.

All I'm pointing out is that there are people who have claimed they have successfully changed their orientation and it should be worth some additional scrutiny to determine the validity of their claims and if the claims are valid, determine how the change came about.

Why haven't we heard anything more about it? I think there's overwhelming political pressure not to admit sexual orientation is mutable if that was actually the case.

Furthermore, to claim that sexual orientation is mutable for SOME does not necessarily extrapolate to a claim that it is mutable for ALL.

Like I said, you are late to the party, and the party appears to be coming to an end in this regard. Trust me, I pay attention to such things in the media, and it was being discussed seven years ago.

I have it in the back of my mind, probably reported here or on CB, but that two of the leading proponents of this, a gay man and a gay woman who married, ended up splitting and "reverting" and saying "it was never completely like we said it was, and hoped it was, but we really did try." Hurt the cause.

It's a proven fact that under extreme duress, humans, when confronted with an alternative of living a life sterilized of human intimacy, will sometimes change sexual preference as long as the duress and extreme conditions exist. We see this in prisons, where something like family relationships including extended family relationships are formed, including monogomous couples among heretofore heterosexuals. (I've heard that as long as it is consentual these bonds are not discouraged or prohibited by prison authorities.) That situation is obviously irrelevant to whether gays otherwise living under like conditions as heterosexuals ought to be able to marry their lovers. Of course this isn't "preference" at all.

If there are situations where gays claim to have been "cured" and are now heterosexual, they are extremely rare compared to the overal gay populace. I can understand how such a "cure" might seem to occur, where, much like in prisons, a gay who claims to have turned heterosexual was confronted with losing all family and cultural ties, any form of intimacy to which he had grown accustomed and used to relying upon, except his gay lover, which brings on a whole new set of stresses and issues, as does any monogomous sexual relationship. These miraculous "cures" all seem to happen in the context of extreme religious conservatism and pressure. Don't they? Again, this is not preference but a response to among the most cruel possible coersion--complete ostracisation by family and friends.

No, the majority of gays (and straights) don't "choose" to be gay or straight. However, there's a significant population who fall in the middle of the continuum who do choose their team, so to speak. I know several women (one a close friend) who had a lesbian phase (lengthy, and beyond just experimentation) and is now happily married to a man. I would call her legitimately bisexual. Curiously, I don't know any men who have gone from gay to straight, but I imagine that is due more to the incredible societal pressure on a man to at least try to be straight from the beginning; if they're openly gay, they've likely already tried the straight route.

Waters is likely right--there are likely a host of LDS men who are gay/bisexual and in hetero relationships. I think the church, to their credit, has certainly shifted in their advice to these men, from "fake it till you make it" to celibacy.

I don't think it is fair to say that when gay men are told to be celibate, that means that a gay RM is being told not to marry.

I think almost everyone who hears that counsel thinks it means "be celibate from gay sexual relations."

Does anyone know of an admonition where it is said young men with SSA should not marry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa..._Homosexuality

http://www.narth.com/

Looks to be strongly influenced by the evangelical movement.

Well, at least people are talking now . . .

But this is more or less what I was afraid I would see. SU would come out with guns ablaze, claiming that it's an open and shut case and that it is scientifically proven as immutable. A few chime in some news reports and some stories they've heard about gays changing orientation, at which point SU changes his tune to "virtually no dissent." All the while, nobody seems to have access to any studies on the matter on which to hang our hat, indicating to me that it's not only far from an "open and shut" case, but that there doesn't seem to be any concordance on the matter.

Thanks once more for your insightful contribution. Please keep your promise and shut up.

I wonder how you might improve the question. I asked for references to solid scientific studies on the mutability or immutability of same sex attraction instead of the tired back and forth between the same actors, arguing the same cases and coming to the same conclusions. I'm all for controversy and disagreement, but in this case, I would have preferred that the disagreement have a little more substance behind it.

Mock wikipedia all you want, but they have a pretty good review on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

That's a great review. Thanks.

Concerning your first paragraph, if accurate you aren't suggesting this is an argument for amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, I trust?

Nope. Just saying that in my opinion, some choose, most don't.

Does anybody choose their sexual feelings? That sounds very odd especially coming from a physician.

Don't you think sexual identity and "feelings" are a product of your innate inner workings and learned from the environment?

You have hormonal impulses, which when coupled with environmental factors, affect sexuality.

Example, if a guy has heterosexual urges, but lives a modest lifestyle, ignoring pornography and prostitutes or lascivious lifestyle, as opposed to the same guy who goes to strip joints, engages in whatever pleases him, don't you think his innate traits are affected by his behavior?

It makes little sense to say anybody chooses feelings, but personal workings and environmental factors probably affect homosexuality just as they affect heterosexuality.

The issue is do they choose to be what they are. The complex of environmental and biological including genetic factors leading to sexual preference is still unknown. You're just speculating. The answer is unknown, and this isn't your field anyway. I'm not interested in any interested lay person's speculation.

But gays attest they didn't choose to be gay. This is the crux of their civil rights case and the crux of the moral issue.

Wherein did I speculate? I asked ER about his belief that they choose their sexual feelings. Did you even read what I wrote, or are you going exUte on me?

Seattle Ute reads a post by a Mormon on sexuality and he assumes we all assume the same things. Go read a review.

And I can agree that nobody chooses one's initial sexual feelings. They are innate, from an early period. I can remember, faintly, my first ones, and they were at a very young age before I even understood what they were. Nature puts them there. And they are enhanced or distorted by what we do. Or changed.

And basically, other than the moral right bullshit, I was agreeing with you.

Moral rights are limited.

And be assured, many of us are getting pretty damn tired of yours.

Wow, I didn't realize my one-line answer, obviously intended as a simplification of a very complex issue, would be put to such scrutiny...

Read the review I posted. I'll side with the science on this one, in that sexuality is a complex mixture of genetic predisposition, environmental factors, and lifestyle choices.

And being an ER doctor is a far cry from being an expert on human sexuality. So is being an attorney.

You just stated what most of us can read. OTOH, except for us attorneys, most of us are members of the human race, and we have an anecdote of one life experience regarding sexuality.

Did you choose your sexuality, or do you remember it always being there and always being hetero?

I remember from my earliest thoughts, which were fairly naive, of them being hetero. As a four or five year, one thinks of a naked lady and one gets a certain reaction. One's not sure why but it happens.

Isn't that exactly what I said in my original post? And in my one-liner? No, most people don't "choose" their sexuality. I do think there are exceptions, and continually stating your own experience doesn't seem to argue that there aren't.

Where exactly do we disagree?

IMO, and it is just O, as this is "not my field," anyone who states that any aspect of human sexual behavior can be characterized, described or predicted in absolute terms is either naive, stupid or ignoring their own experience. Moreover, I do nto agree that the issue of immutability is the bottom line here. It is certainly a key facotr in the enitre issue of how sociaety deals wioth gender attraction but it is not determiantive of the marriage question or of any other issue (by itself) in this area. Again, just my opinion.

A valid opinion at that.

I don't believe anybody chooses his or her sexuality. A person who may have divergent sexual feelings may engage in conduct that impacts those feelings, but I've read very little which suggests otherwise, and most of what I prefer to read on the subject is of a more clinical variety even though as you point out, I'm just a dumb lawyer.

Show me some clinical data that supports the thesis that some chose their sexuality.

deleted dup.

Of course you don't agree it's the bottom line. No one could and support Proposition 8. For some of us, it is the bottom line. We are talking about consenting adults here, and their only apparent means or chance of experiencing deeply rewarding romantic love and intimacy. Hence, my values say I want them to have the right to marry.

This is where science ends and values begin to govern.

I am surprised that you actually believe that two consenting adults may only achieve deeply rewarding romantic love and intimacy through receipt of the social imprimatur of marriage. I am so surprised that I don't believe you actually think that.