Just to be clear, "fixing" gays is not where I'm attempting to go with this line of thinking. I tend to treat this forum as a quasi-academic setting, wherein ideas can be discussed without concern for their outcome's impact on the outside world. That's probably unrealistic, but it's just how my brain works.
Anyhow, the idea that I'm trying to discuss is whether there are "identity" traits, rooted in genetics and hormones and etc, about which we can inoffensively discuss our ability or desire to change, modify, improve. I'm trying to come up with examples of non-superficial aspects of our identity that are not inherently negative or immoral, but nevertheless that we as a society are okay with being changed or just entertaining the discussion of being changed. For example, weight, hair color, eye color -- these are genetically influenced superficialities that for the most part no one thinks twice about changing and thus are pretty poor parallels/analogies for this conversation. That is to say, technically speaking they are parallels, but they are so superficial as to carry almost no weight.
I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.
I get what you mean, and didn't mean to imply that *fixing* people was your intent. The idea of doing aversion therapy, etc usually stems from the belief that being gay is about choosing a lifestyle, so I just wanted to address that notion in my post and explain why I took issue with the terminology.
I understand what you're saying. I *alter* my height (sort of) every day that I wear heels. I mean partly I just love shoes, but I also want to be taller I think the desire to change some of those superficial traits is tied to societal messages about what attributes are more valued, but ultimately it would be our choice rather than someone telling us we have to change our brown eyes (for example) or can't marry because we have brown eyes etc. I agree - I also struggle to find an aspect of our identity that would be comparable, other than things like ethnic identity.
BJs always steal the focus :roll:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.
The thread was moving along nicely until they had to shove their heterosexual lifestyle down our throats!
I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.
The thread was moving along nicely until they had to shove their heterosexual lifestyle down our throats!
Others here discussed orientation and lifestyle...
I must say though that I do not believe being gay is never a choice.
It is not that absolute.
Nor do I think everyone was born that way, who is gay...
but it is a damn catchy tune.
Far more than a majority that would hold true, yes, genetics etc
but our experiences in life from the time of birth
directly effect our choices and vice versa.
There was a time when a population could say no one would choose to be gay
for the sheer fact of being outcast, that time is passing and being replaced
with power and unity.
Choosing to live a gay lifestyle is purposely being chosen
by some for different reasons, one is the path of least resistance.
Ironically it is the same reason some chose not to accept the gay lifestyle in
decades past.
Gay is something people are. NOT something that they do.
There is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle." Any more than there is "The blond lifestyle" or the "Pearl Jam fan lifestyle."
Suggesting that the very state of being gay and alive at the same time would cause cancer shows just how dumb and out of other arguments those people are.
To the question of "why is using lifestyle a bad thing?"
When they use the word "life style," the obvious connotation is that we're talking about a chosen series of activities like "staying up all night while flying on Crystal Meth, getting banged by 50 total strangers and surviving on a diet of steroids and will power." The intent is to suggest that not only do gay people CHOOSE their bad behavior but to spread the idea that they' deserve the consequences."
But this isn't anything new. I remember back in the 80s, the lie started to spread around the Christian groups and handout literature that gay people live an average of 41 years. This "fact" spread around so widely that there are still people who believe it to this day. Years later, someone from the group that released this dubious factoid admitted that they came upon this number by buying a copy of the village voice, going to the obituary page and averaging the ages of the men who had died of HIV. Which tells you just about all you need to know about the people who release figures like that.
Just to be clear, "fixing" gays is not where I'm attempting to go with this line of thinking. I tend to treat this forum as a quasi-academic setting, wherein ideas can be discussed without concern for their outcome's impact on the outside world. That's probably unrealistic, but it's just how my brain works.
Anyhow, the idea that I'm trying to discuss is whether there are "identity" traits, rooted in genetics and hormones and etc, about which we can inoffensively discuss our ability or desire to change, modify, improve. I'm trying to come up with examples of non-superficial aspects of our identity that are not inherently negative or immoral, but nevertheless that we as a society are okay with being changed or just entertaining the discussion of being changed. For example, weight, hair color, eye color -- these are genetically influenced superficialities that for the most part no one thinks twice about changing and thus are pretty poor parallels/analogies for this conversation. That is to say, technically speaking they are parallels, but they are so superficial as to carry almost no weight.
I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.
I get what you mean, and didn't mean to imply that *fixing* people was your intent. The idea of doing aversion therapy, etc usually stems from the belief that being gay is about choosing a lifestyle, so I just wanted to address that notion in my post and explain why I took issue with the terminology.
I understand what you're saying. I *alter* my height (sort of) every day that I wear heels. I mean partly I just love shoes, but I also want to be taller I think the desire to change some of those superficial traits is tied to societal messages about what attributes are more valued, but ultimately it would be our choice rather than someone telling us we have to change our brown eyes (for example) or can't marry because we have brown eyes etc. I agree - I also struggle to find an aspect of our identity that would be comparable, other than things like ethnic identity.
BJs always steal the focus :roll:
Just speculating here about the kind of example that MotoDC is searching for. Would "addictive personality" (ie, the predisposition to become addicted to a substance based in part on your family history) qualify as one of those traits that has a biological basis? I know that children of alcoholics/addicts are at greater risk of becoming addicted themselves, yet not everyone from that background becomes addicted.
yes we can
and may do, many are, and millions are lining up to be counted in this statistic. count me, folks... i'm lighting up and lookin for a manly-friend. anyone? anyone?
what about smokin big ol' cigars like that one gal after Clinton? can a pair of men mess the oval office like back in the Willy Clinton days of oral office?
by-golly i think i wanna be a christian, wanna smoke a lot of things & stick a lot of things up there for awhile
yes we can
and may do, many are, and millions are lining up to be counted in this statistic. count me, folks... i'm lighting up and lookin for a manly-friend. anyone? anyone?
what about smokin big ol' cigars like that one gal after Clinton? can a pair of men mess the oval office like back in the Willy Clinton days of oral office?
by-golly i think i wanna be a christian, wanna smoke a lot of things & stick a lot of things up there for awhile
Just to be clear, "fixing" gays is not where I'm attempting to go with this line of thinking. I tend to treat this forum as a quasi-academic setting, wherein ideas can be discussed without concern for their outcome's impact on the outside world. That's probably unrealistic, but it's just how my brain works.
Anyhow, the idea that I'm trying to discuss is whether there are "identity" traits, rooted in genetics and hormones and etc, about which we can inoffensively discuss our ability or desire to change, modify, improve. I'm trying to come up with examples of non-superficial aspects of our identity that are not inherently negative or immoral, but nevertheless that we as a society are okay with being changed or just entertaining the discussion of being changed. For example, weight, hair color, eye color -- these are genetically influenced superficialities that for the most part no one thinks twice about changing and thus are pretty poor parallels/analogies for this conversation. That is to say, technically speaking they are parallels, but they are so superficial as to carry almost no weight.
I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.
Just speculating here about the kind of example that MotoDC is searching for. Would "addictive personality" (ie, the predisposition to become addicted to a substance based in part on your family history) qualify as one of those traits that has a biological basis? I know that children of alcoholics/addicts are at greater risk of becoming addicted themselves, yet not everyone from that background becomes addicted.
Hi Who! :wave: Thanks for playing my little game.
To respond to your suggestion, my opinion is that it is and it isn't. It is a good example because it's largely determined by genetics and it gets even closer to being a good example because it's not inherently a bad thing. For example, an addictive personality can be channeled into athletic training or motivation on the job. However, the particulars you provided (addiction to drugs and alcohol) kinda are. That said, it isn't a good example because it does walk a fine line with things that are inherently bad (it's all in what one is addicted to, I suppose). My goal was to find something that was a meaningful parallel, but also clearly not inherently "bad" or undesirable. The reason for that is that it shuts down conversation on a topic like this -- people will take it to mean that, morally speaking, one is trying to equate <inherently negative example xyz> with homosexuality.
Does that make any sense? I may be mixing up the traits of an obsessive person and addictive personality, but I guess I imagine them being different points on a similar scale.
Hmmm okay I'm going to take a risk here and try to make this example work; hopefully I won't be misunderstood. Let's say person X has an addictive personality that causes them to devote a ton of time and energy to their job (i.e., they've channeled it productively). They've made good money, are successful -- from the outside it looks like everything is going well. Now let's say that that person recognizes that they'd like to spend more time at home. That it's more their addictive personality that is causing their success at work than it is a true desire to be successful at work. It'll require a sacrifice at work and they might not be as successful in their career, but it's a balance that they now want. If that person were to go to therapy to learn to lessen or "deal with" their additive personality, no one would fault it morally, even though they are trying to change a piece of their identity that American society at large does not acknowledge as a "bad" thing (i.e., a personality that is driven to success on the job).
In that scenario, we have person X attempting to change a facet of their non-physical identity that is not inherently negative. So why does that not bother us like the notion of aversion therapy for homosexuals does? I'll offer a potential answer, though I'm not sure I like it: it's because in this scenario, the person decided to make the change on their own. They weren't pressured by external forces. However, if we accept that answer, then I believe we would also have to accept a homosexual who, without pressure from external forces, chooses to seek therapy to learn to "control" the sexual orientation piece of his or her identity. And I don't think most folks are prepared to do that.
Just to be clear, "fixing" gays is not where I'm attempting to go with this line of thinking. I tend to treat this forum as a quasi-academic setting, wherein ideas can be discussed without concern for their outcome's impact on the outside world. That's probably unrealistic, but it's just how my brain works.
Anyhow, the idea that I'm trying to discuss is whether there are "identity" traits, rooted in genetics and hormones and etc, about which we can inoffensively discuss our ability or desire to change, modify, improve. I'm trying to come up with examples of non-superficial aspects of our identity that are not inherently negative or immoral, but nevertheless that we as a society are okay with being changed or just entertaining the discussion of being changed. For example, weight, hair color, eye color -- these are genetically influenced superficialities that for the most part no one thinks twice about changing and thus are pretty poor parallels/analogies for this conversation. That is to say, technically speaking they are parallels, but they are so superficial as to carry almost no weight.
I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.
I get what you mean, and didn't mean to imply that *fixing* people was your intent. The idea of doing aversion therapy, etc usually stems from the belief that being gay is about choosing a lifestyle, so I just wanted to address that notion in my post and explain why I took issue with the terminology.
I understand what you're saying. I *alter* my height (sort of) every day that I wear heels. I mean partly I just love shoes, but I also want to be taller I think the desire to change some of those superficial traits is tied to societal messages about what attributes are more valued, but ultimately it would be our choice rather than someone telling us we have to change our brown eyes (for example) or can't marry because we have brown eyes etc. I agree - I also struggle to find an aspect of our identity that would be comparable, other than things like ethnic identity.
BJs always steal the focus :roll:
Just speculating here about the kind of example that MotoDC is searching for. Would "addictive personality" (ie, the predisposition to become addicted to a substance based in part on your family history) qualify as one of those traits that has a biological basis? I know that children of alcoholics/addicts are at greater risk of becoming addicted themselves, yet not everyone from that background becomes addicted.
There's definitely an interplay between biology and environment when it comes to addiction, but I also see some important differences. While in general terms people may refer to someone as an "addict" or "recovering addict" I don't think it's really a part of their identity in terms of who they are. They may be a person struggling with addiction or a person in recovery, but I think here there is a separation of who they are from what they do (and a very important distinction for them to see as they move to and through recovery). There is a very real distinction between the behavior and the person in this case. While elimination of the addictive behavior is seen as healthy and often improves functioning, aversion therapy for sexual orientation is harmful and can be destructive. I think it's more things like gender identity, ethnic/cultural identity/sexual orientation that describe identity, or who we are. I hope that makes sense because I think I rambled...a lot :?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Just to be clear, "fixing" gays is not where I'm attempting to go with this line of thinking. I tend to treat this forum as a quasi-academic setting, wherein ideas can be discussed without concern for their outcome's impact on the outside world. That's probably unrealistic, but it's just how my brain works.
Anyhow, the idea that I'm trying to discuss is whether there are "identity" traits, rooted in genetics and hormones and etc, about which we can inoffensively discuss our ability or desire to change, modify, improve. I'm trying to come up with examples of non-superficial aspects of our identity that are not inherently negative or immoral, but nevertheless that we as a society are okay with being changed or just entertaining the discussion of being changed. For example, weight, hair color, eye color -- these are genetically influenced superficialities that for the most part no one thinks twice about changing and thus are pretty poor parallels/analogies for this conversation. That is to say, technically speaking they are parallels, but they are so superficial as to carry almost no weight.
I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.
Just speculating here about the kind of example that MotoDC is searching for. Would "addictive personality" (ie, the predisposition to become addicted to a substance based in part on your family history) qualify as one of those traits that has a biological basis? I know that children of alcoholics/addicts are at greater risk of becoming addicted themselves, yet not everyone from that background becomes addicted.
Hi Who! :wave: Thanks for playing my little game.
To respond to your suggestion, my opinion is that it is and it isn't. It is a good example because it's largely determined by genetics and it gets even closer to being a good example because it's not inherently a bad thing. For example, an addictive personality can be channeled into athletic training or motivation on the job. However, the particulars you provided (addiction to drugs and alcohol) kinda are. That said, it isn't a good example because it does walk a fine line with things that are inherently bad (it's all in what one is addicted to, I suppose). My goal was to find something that was a meaningful parallel, but also clearly not inherently "bad" or undesirable. The reason for that is that it shuts down conversation on a topic like this -- people will take it to mean that, morally speaking, one is trying to equate <inherently negative example xyz> with homosexuality.
Does that make any sense? I may be mixing up the traits of an obsessive person and addictive personality, but I guess I imagine them being different points on a similar scale.
Hmmm okay I'm going to take a risk here and try to make this example work; hopefully I won't be misunderstood. Let's say person X has an addictive personality that causes them to devote a ton of time and energy to their job (i.e., they've channeled it productively). They've made good money, are successful -- from the outside it looks like everything is going well. Now let's say that that person recognizes that they'd like to spend more time at home. That it's more their addictive personality that is causing their success at work than it is a true desire to be successful at work. It'll require a sacrifice at work and they might not be as successful in their career, but it's a balance that they now want. If that person were to go to therapy to learn to lessen or "deal with" their additive personality, no one would fault it morally, even though they are trying to change a piece of their identity that American society at large does not acknowledge as a "bad" thing (i.e., a personality that is driven to success on the job).
In that scenario, we have person X attempting to change a facet of their non-physical identity that is not inherently negative. So why does that not bother us like the notion of aversion therapy for homosexuals does? I'll offer a potential answer, though I'm not sure I like it: it's because in this scenario, the person decided to make the change on their own. They weren't pressured by external forces. However, if we accept that answer, then I believe we would also have to accept a homosexual who, without pressure from external forces, chooses to seek therapy to learn to "control" the sexual orientation piece of his or her identity. And I don't think most folks are prepared to do that.
I think in your example that is really more about a behavioral attempt to manage emotions, rather than being a part of the person's identity. I mean we all have ways to manage overwhelming stressors and feelings, some healthy, some maladaptive (substances, gambling, spending, sleeping, cutting, overworking, etc). Temperament is a part of what makes up our identity, but the example you gave is not enduring. It would naturally fluctuate based on stressors etc (might not disappear all together as it is a "trait" and you might always be a workaholic but it would ebb and flow; whereas you wouldn't be more or less gay throughout your life). Again, I hope that makes sense
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I think in your example that is really more about a behavioral attempt to manage emotions, rather than being a part of the person's identity. I mean we all have ways to manage overwhelming stressors and feelings, some healthy, some maladaptive (substances, gambling, spending, sleeping, cutting, overworking, etc). Temperament is a part of what makes up our identity, but the example you gave is not enduring. It would naturally fluctuate based on stressors etc (might not disappear all together as it is a "trait" and you might always be a workaholic but it would ebb and flow; whereas you wouldn't be more or less gay throughout your life). Again, I hope that makes sense
Oh, I don't know. When I rock out to Bad Romance, alone in my car, I'm pretty sure I fluctuate toward the "less straight" end of my spectrum for a moment. :oops:
I think in your example that is really more about a behavioral attempt to manage emotions, rather than being a part of the person's identity. I mean we all have ways to manage overwhelming stressors and feelings, some healthy, some maladaptive (substances, gambling, spending, sleeping, cutting, overworking, etc). Temperament is a part of what makes up our identity, but the example you gave is not enduring. It would naturally fluctuate based on stressors etc (might not disappear all together as it is a "trait" and you might always be a workaholic but it would ebb and flow; whereas you wouldn't be more or less gay throughout your life). Again, I hope that makes sense
Oh, I don't know. When I rock out to Bad Romance, alone in my car, I'm pretty sure I fluctuate toward the "less straight" end of my spectrum for a moment. :oops:
video or it didn't happen
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Just speculating here about the kind of example that MotoDC is searching for. Would "addictive personality" (ie, the predisposition to become addicted to a substance based in part on your family history) qualify as one of those traits that has a biological basis? I know that children of alcoholics/addicts are at greater risk of becoming addicted themselves, yet not everyone from that background becomes addicted.
Hi Who! :wave: Thanks for playing my little game.
To respond to your suggestion, my opinion is that it is and it isn't. It is a good example because it's largely determined by genetics and it gets even closer to being a good example because it's not inherently a bad thing. For example, an addictive personality can be channeled into athletic training or motivation on the job. However, the particulars you provided (addiction to drugs and alcohol) kinda are. That said, it isn't a good example because it does walk a fine line with things that are inherently bad (it's all in what one is addicted to, I suppose). My goal was to find something that was a meaningful parallel, but also clearly not inherently "bad" or undesirable. The reason for that is that it shuts down conversation on a topic like this -- people will take it to mean that, morally speaking, one is trying to equate <inherently negative example xyz> with homosexuality.
Does that make any sense? I may be mixing up the traits of an obsessive person and addictive personality, but I guess I imagine them being different points on a similar scale.
Back at ya!
I wondered about using that as an example since being addicted, at least to a substance, is harmful and I didn't want to equate being gay as something bad. I sincerely believe that people are born gay.
I was trying to come up with an example for what you were suggesting and I guess it was more than my brain could handle.
Just speculating here about the kind of example that MotoDC is searching for. Would "addictive personality" (ie, the predisposition to become addicted to a substance based in part on your family history) qualify as one of those traits that has a biological basis? I know that children of alcoholics/addicts are at greater risk of becoming addicted themselves, yet not everyone from that background becomes addicted.
There's definitely an interplay between biology and environment when it comes to addiction, but I also see some important differences. While in general terms people may refer to someone as an "addict" or "recovering addict" I don't think it's really a part of their identity in terms of who they are. They may be a person struggling with addiction or a person in recovery, but I think here there is a separation of who they are from what they do (and a very important distinction for them to see as they move to and through recovery). There is a very real distinction between the behavior and the person in this case. While elimination of the addictive behavior is seen as healthy and often improves functioning, aversion therapy for sexual orientation is harmful and can be destructive. I think it's more things like gender identity, ethnic/cultural identity/sexual orientation that describe identity, or who we are. I hope that makes sense because I think I rambled...a lot :?
Yes, it makes sense.
I'm not knowledgeable about addiction but I am close to someone who is in recovery, which was making me think of this. She's been sober for several years but has a a very strong identity as an alcoholic. Although she has many friends, those closest to her are also people in recovery and she's told me she only dates men who are in recovery because other people "just don't understand."
The more I think about it though, it just isn't the right parallel for sexual orientation. OK, everybody, never mind! :oops:
I'm not knowledgeable about addiction but I am close to someone who is in recovery, which was making me think of this. She's been sober for several years but has a a very strong identity as an alcoholic. Although she has many friends, those closest to her are also people in recovery and she's told me she only dates men who are in recovery because other people "just don't understand."
The more I think about it though, it just isn't the right parallel for sexual orientation. OK, everybody, never mind! :oops:
I agree with you. I think this aspect of addictive personality is not the right parallel, but it does bring up an interesting paradox with something that comebackgirl said above. She mentioned that, in treating people with compulsive behaviors, the therapist attempts to separate for the patient what they are versus what they do. It seems it is important that they acknowledge that there's a "self" inside them that is not beholden to the impulses evidenced in their behavior. The self being who they are, the behavioral evidence being what they do. And yet, Who Princess, your example of the alcoholic demonstrates a nearly polar opposite approach to treatment. AA in particular emphasizes that alcoholism isn't a circumstance to be dealt with; rather it's a state of being. It's an almost integral part of the being of a person, the recognition of which is an irreplaceable step in the recovery process. Even that undersells it, because it is expected that the alcoholic carries that notion of their identity throughout their life, in order that they might be emboldened against the temptation.
(Side note I'm way off the sexual orientation topic, if it wasn't obvious.)
I guess how I tie this back into the prior conversation is to say that the human mind is a helluva place to live. :ugeek:
I'm not knowledgeable about addiction but I am close to someone who is in recovery, which was making me think of this. She's been sober for several years but has a a very strong identity as an alcoholic. Although she has many friends, those closest to her are also people in recovery and she's told me she only dates men who are in recovery because other people "just don't understand."
The more I think about it though, it just isn't the right parallel for sexual orientation. OK, everybody, never mind! :oops:
I agree with you. I think this aspect of addictive personality is not the right parallel, but it does bring up an interesting paradox with something that comebackgirl said above. She mentioned that, in treating people with compulsive behaviors, the therapist attempts to separate for the patient what they are versus what they do. It seems it is important that they acknowledge that there's a "self" inside them that is not beholden to the impulses evidenced in their behavior. The self being who they are, the behavioral evidence being what they do. And yet, Who Princess, your example of the alcoholic demonstrates a nearly polar opposite approach to treatment. AA in particular emphasizes that alcoholism isn't a circumstance to be dealt with; rather it's a state of being. It's an almost integral part of the being of a person, the recognition of which is an irreplaceable step in the recovery process. Even that undersells it, because it is expected that the alcoholic carries that notion of their identity throughout their life, in order that they might be emboldened against the temptation.
(Side note I'm way off the sexual orientation topic, if it wasn't obvious.)
I guess how I tie this back into the prior conversation is to say that the human mind is a helluva place to live. :ugeek:
They're not polar opposite approaches. Identifying as an alcoholic, addict, co-dependent etc. helps people form a sense of connection and strength with other people in recovery and helps frame the power of the disease. This is a really important part of the 12 steps. They admit their powerlessness over the disease of addiction and fallibility as human beings. With this recognition there can be a separation from the expression of the addiction (the behavior). While they may always identify as an addict in some sense and live with the disease of the addiction, they also realize that they are not the disease. The work is to help strengthen the healthy part of that identity; the part that while still vulnerable to the disease, can live and cope in healthy ways. The healthy self gets some distance from the addicted self. With sexual orientation there is no disease or illness. The behavioral expression is positive (forming connections and relationships with other people of the same sex), so this is something to be embraced rather than distanced from.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
They're not polar opposite approaches. Identifying as an alcoholic, addict, co-dependent etc. helps people form a sense of connection and strength with other people in recovery and helps frame the power of the disease. This is a really important part of the 12 steps. They admit their powerlessness over the disease of addiction and fallibility as human beings. With this recognition there can be a separation from the expression of the addiction (the behavior). While they may always identify as an addict in some sense and live with the disease of the addiction, they also realize that they are not the disease. The work is to help strengthen the healthy part of that identity; the part that while still vulnerable to the disease, can live and cope in healthy ways. The healthy self gets some distance from the addicted self. With sexual orientation there is no disease or illness. The behavioral expression is positive (forming connections and relationships with other people of the same sex), so this is something to be embraced rather than distanced from.
General note: my conversation on this current topic is completely separate from the topic we've been considering above, therefore I don't feel the need to clarify my statements any further with comparison or contrast to sexual orientation. Just in case anyone other than cbg is reading this thread.
Now then. comebackgirl. I personally think you underestimate the fundamental statement of the AA mantra -- "I'm xyz, and I'm an alcoholic." It's not some separate function of their identity, it's not some flaw in their persona. To make it as such is to judge the condition that dictates so much of their desire. Alcoholism is an inseparable facet of their personality that they will live with until they die. "I am an alcoholic, therefore I cannot drink or I will die. I am a human, therefore I must breathe or I will die." The two are one and the same.
Perhaps this approach is acceptable only because alcoholism is a socially acceptable disease (or a "condition of our identity", in the parlance of our current conversation). That is to say, one can maintain self-confidence in stating this particular notion of one's own shortcoming (alcoholism in this case), but only because it has been accepted into the spectrum of pre-conscious psychological consideration. Yeah you're an alchy, but fuck it, so are lots of folks. Accept that you are who you are and act accordingly, and suddenly this state of existence has no negative influence on your life.
They're not polar opposite approaches. Identifying as an alcoholic, addict, co-dependent etc. helps people form a sense of connection and strength with other people in recovery and helps frame the power of the disease. This is a really important part of the 12 steps. They admit their powerlessness over the disease of addiction and fallibility as human beings. With this recognition there can be a separation from the expression of the addiction (the behavior). While they may always identify as an addict in some sense and live with the disease of the addiction, they also realize that they are not the disease. The work is to help strengthen the healthy part of that identity; the part that while still vulnerable to the disease, can live and cope in healthy ways. The healthy self gets some distance from the addicted self. With sexual orientation there is no disease or illness. The behavioral expression is positive (forming connections and relationships with other people of the same sex), so this is something to be embraced rather than distanced from.
General note: my conversation on this current topic is completely separate from the topic we've been considering above, therefore I don't feel the need to clarify my statements any further with comparison or contrast to sexual orientation. Just in case anyone other than cbg is reading this thread.
Now then. comebackgirl. I personally think you underestimate the fundamental statement of the AA mantra -- "I'm xyz, and I'm an alcoholic." It's not some separate function of their identity, it's not some flaw in their persona. To make it as such is to judge the condition that dictates so much of their desire. Alcoholism is an inseparable facet of their personality that they will live with until they die. "I am an alcoholic, therefore I cannot drink or I will die. I am a human, therefore I must breathe or I will die." The two are one and the same.
Perhaps this approach is acceptable only because alcoholism is a socially acceptable disease (or a "condition of our identity", in the parlance of our current conversation). That is to say, one can maintain self-confidence in stating this particular notion of one's own shortcoming (alcoholism in this case), but only because it has been accepted into the spectrum of pre-conscious psychological consideration. Yeah you're an alchy, but fuck it, so are lots of folks. Accept that you are who you are and act accordingly, and suddenly this state of existence has no negative influence on your life.
maybe we should start a new thread? Just because we're veering off topic...a bit
I really feel like it's apples and oranges. I struggle with the comparison. I recognize that the identity as an alcoholic or addict may be enduring, but it also evolves. Addiction might be more comparable to other biologically based illnesses, such as depression. When untreated, at it's essence, the illness is harmful. While they may always identify as an alcoholic, addict, codependent, etc. part of recovery is embracing a new self-image - one of someone who is in recovery and who is healthy. Inherently they are the same person, but they are also a healthier version of themselves. Sexual orientation seems more comparable to ethnic identity. Neither is an illness and they are both inherently a healthy expression of self.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Comments
I understand what you're saying. I *alter* my height (sort of) every day that I wear heels. I mean partly I just love shoes, but I also want to be taller
BJs always steal the focus :roll:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Godfather.
Kinda true...well then again, just imagine trying to enjoy a pizza where they substitute teeth as a topping. Teeth arent good in Bj's or pizza..
The thread was moving along nicely until they had to shove their heterosexual lifestyle down our throats!
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Others here discussed orientation and lifestyle...
I must say though that I do not believe being gay is never a choice.
It is not that absolute.
Nor do I think everyone was born that way, who is gay...
but it is a damn catchy tune.
Far more than a majority that would hold true, yes, genetics etc
but our experiences in life from the time of birth
directly effect our choices and vice versa.
There was a time when a population could say no one would choose to be gay
for the sheer fact of being outcast, that time is passing and being replaced
with power and unity.
Choosing to live a gay lifestyle is purposely being chosen
by some for different reasons, one is the path of least resistance.
Ironically it is the same reason some chose not to accept the gay lifestyle in
decades past.
There is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle." Any more than there is "The blond lifestyle" or the "Pearl Jam fan lifestyle."
Suggesting that the very state of being gay and alive at the same time would cause cancer shows just how dumb and out of other arguments those people are.
To the question of "why is using lifestyle a bad thing?"
When they use the word "life style," the obvious connotation is that we're talking about a chosen series of activities like "staying up all night while flying on Crystal Meth, getting banged by 50 total strangers and surviving on a diet of steroids and will power." The intent is to suggest that not only do gay people CHOOSE their bad behavior but to spread the idea that they' deserve the consequences."
But this isn't anything new. I remember back in the 80s, the lie started to spread around the Christian groups and handout literature that gay people live an average of 41 years. This "fact" spread around so widely that there are still people who believe it to this day. Years later, someone from the group that released this dubious factoid admitted that they came upon this number by buying a copy of the village voice, going to the obituary page and averaging the ages of the men who had died of HIV. Which tells you just about all you need to know about the people who release figures like that.
and may do, many are, and millions are lining up to be counted in this statistic. count me, folks... i'm lighting up and lookin for a manly-friend. anyone? anyone?
what about smokin big ol' cigars like that one gal after Clinton? can a pair of men mess the oval office like back in the Willy Clinton days of oral office?
by-golly i think i wanna be a christian, wanna smoke a lot of things & stick a lot of things up there for awhile
btw,
GWB jr. is the chit
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
To respond to your suggestion, my opinion is that it is and it isn't. It is a good example because it's largely determined by genetics and it gets even closer to being a good example because it's not inherently a bad thing. For example, an addictive personality can be channeled into athletic training or motivation on the job. However, the particulars you provided (addiction to drugs and alcohol) kinda are. That said, it isn't a good example because it does walk a fine line with things that are inherently bad (it's all in what one is addicted to, I suppose). My goal was to find something that was a meaningful parallel, but also clearly not inherently "bad" or undesirable. The reason for that is that it shuts down conversation on a topic like this -- people will take it to mean that, morally speaking, one is trying to equate <inherently negative example xyz> with homosexuality.
Does that make any sense? I may be mixing up the traits of an obsessive person and addictive personality, but I guess I imagine them being different points on a similar scale.
Hmmm okay I'm going to take a risk here and try to make this example work; hopefully I won't be misunderstood. Let's say person X has an addictive personality that causes them to devote a ton of time and energy to their job (i.e., they've channeled it productively). They've made good money, are successful -- from the outside it looks like everything is going well. Now let's say that that person recognizes that they'd like to spend more time at home. That it's more their addictive personality that is causing their success at work than it is a true desire to be successful at work. It'll require a sacrifice at work and they might not be as successful in their career, but it's a balance that they now want. If that person were to go to therapy to learn to lessen or "deal with" their additive personality, no one would fault it morally, even though they are trying to change a piece of their identity that American society at large does not acknowledge as a "bad" thing (i.e., a personality that is driven to success on the job).
In that scenario, we have person X attempting to change a facet of their non-physical identity that is not inherently negative. So why does that not bother us like the notion of aversion therapy for homosexuals does? I'll offer a potential answer, though I'm not sure I like it: it's because in this scenario, the person decided to make the change on their own. They weren't pressured by external forces. However, if we accept that answer, then I believe we would also have to accept a homosexual who, without pressure from external forces, chooses to seek therapy to learn to "control" the sexual orientation piece of his or her identity. And I don't think most folks are prepared to do that.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Hail, Hail!!!
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I wondered about using that as an example since being addicted, at least to a substance, is harmful and I didn't want to equate being gay as something bad. I sincerely believe that people are born gay.
I was trying to come up with an example for what you were suggesting and I guess it was more than my brain could handle.
I'm not knowledgeable about addiction but I am close to someone who is in recovery, which was making me think of this. She's been sober for several years but has a a very strong identity as an alcoholic. Although she has many friends, those closest to her are also people in recovery and she's told me she only dates men who are in recovery because other people "just don't understand."
The more I think about it though, it just isn't the right parallel for sexual orientation. OK, everybody, never mind! :oops:
(Side note I'm way off the sexual orientation topic, if it wasn't obvious.)
I guess how I tie this back into the prior conversation is to say that the human mind is a helluva place to live. :ugeek:
I'm sure we can all figure that one out, though.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Now then. comebackgirl. I personally think you underestimate the fundamental statement of the AA mantra -- "I'm xyz, and I'm an alcoholic." It's not some separate function of their identity, it's not some flaw in their persona. To make it as such is to judge the condition that dictates so much of their desire. Alcoholism is an inseparable facet of their personality that they will live with until they die. "I am an alcoholic, therefore I cannot drink or I will die. I am a human, therefore I must breathe or I will die." The two are one and the same.
Perhaps this approach is acceptable only because alcoholism is a socially acceptable disease (or a "condition of our identity", in the parlance of our current conversation). That is to say, one can maintain self-confidence in stating this particular notion of one's own shortcoming (alcoholism in this case), but only because it has been accepted into the spectrum of pre-conscious psychological consideration. Yeah you're an alchy, but fuck it, so are lots of folks. Accept that you are who you are and act accordingly, and suddenly this state of existence has no negative influence on your life.
I really feel like it's apples and oranges. I struggle with the comparison. I recognize that the identity as an alcoholic or addict may be enduring, but it also evolves. Addiction might be more comparable to other biologically based illnesses, such as depression. When untreated, at it's essence, the illness is harmful. While they may always identify as an alcoholic, addict, codependent, etc. part of recovery is embracing a new self-image - one of someone who is in recovery and who is healthy. Inherently they are the same person, but they are also a healthier version of themselves. Sexual orientation seems more comparable to ethnic identity. Neither is an illness and they are both inherently a healthy expression of self.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"