The gay man who became straight…
THE News Letter has tracked down a man who claims he used to be gay, but – with the help of Iris Robinson’s favourite psychologist – became straight. The man in question was the victim of sexual abuse when he was younger, and didn’t have a “concrete relationship” with his father, which he seems to believe contributed to his homosexuality. He adds: “I have found there are a whole range of factors that in some way stop a man becoming masculine. If they aren’t dealt with by puberty these needs are suddenly eroticised. Straight people often say ‘gay people must be born that way’ because they can’t understand it. But when I probe them more closely such people have always had healthy relationships with a significant male role model as they grew up.” It’s an interesting, somewhat tragic, story – but is it really possible to generalise for all gay men? I’m sure there are plenty of gay people who grew up in stable families, had healthy relationships with their fathers, are happy and secure in their sexuality and were never abused – aren’t there?
“Its a miracle! I can walk again”
I love how Christian fundamentalists just don’t get how absolutely and utterly ridiculous they appear to the rest of us.
What about masculine gay men? How does he explain that?
There are a lot of things that aren’t explained here, but to be fair it’s only a short-ish article that isn’t going to cover everything. I’ve tried to concentrate on what the guy said, as opposed to what he hasn’t.
I wonder if his bank balance has too changed because of this article?
but is it really possible to generalise for all gay men?
From what i have heard from Dr Miller on the Nolan show he doesnt belive that this applies to all gay men, rather a small minority who may be helped by his services.
Indeed, the only people who are saying that this guy can turn gays straight are nolan and those with an anti-Iris agenda.
I’ve tried to concentrate on what the guy said, as opposed to what he hasn’t.
Quite, but it’s hard to ignore the underlying implication that he considers homosexuality a condition that can be ‘cured’. One observation, which this interview appears to bear out, is that the pro-Sharia lobby do appear to be ignorant of the concept of bisexuality.
By all accounts, most straight men can be turned gay, with enough pints.
Maybe this has beeen said before, but there are too many posts on too many strands for me to remember:
People can always ‘modify’ their sexual behaviour to fit an aspiration. In the past many many gay men acted straight because it was simply unacceptable not to. Some gay people went into religious orders (Catholics only, I expect) to avoid the expectations of sexuality counter to their real preferences. Many heterosexual men and women denied their sexuality through vows of chastity.
So it is not impossible that this individual has repressed some part of his sexuality in order to comply with some other part of his complex personality. Or maybe he was (as he seems to be implying) never really gay in the first place – he was just acting gay to fit what he thought he was. Or maybe he was, and still is, bisexual, and just prioritises one side of that as he feels it necessary?
Imagine finding other mens bits desirable, ugghhhh! Disgusting buggers. What’s the fascination in a rear end anyhow, [i]creepy![/i]
Horseman
“[i]Some gay people went into religious orders (Catholics only, I expect) to avoid the expectations of sexuality counter to their real preferences.”[/i]
and most of them turned into pedophiles, so it’s possible to change from being gay.
‘and most of them turned into pedophiles, so it’s possible to change from being gay.’
im sure your going to furnish us with figures on which you’ve based this statement. If not, i think your not the first person to suffer a virtual ‘laughed out of the room’.
And it seems your inferring paedophiles cannot be gay. Again ‘laughed out of the room’.
And it seems your inferring paedophiles cannot be gay. Again ‘laughed out of the room’.
Posted by RepublicanStones on Jun 11, 2008 @ 01:54 PM
Im sure that enough priests have proved that it is possible to be both
One wonders observer why you felt the need to use Priests as an example…..actually its pretty obvious.
One wonders observer why you felt the need to use Priests as an example…..actually its pretty obvious.
Posted by RepublicanStones on Jun 11, 2008 @ 02:09 PM
What is it youre denying? That many priests are Pedos…Gay or both?
Where have i denied anything?
[b]RepublicanStones [/b]
“[i]im sure your going to furnish us with figures on which you’ve based this statement. If not, i think your not the first person to suffer a virtual ‘laughed out of the room’.
And it seems your inferring paedophiles cannot be gay. Again ‘laughed out of the room’.[/i]
There was at one time 50% of the Priesthood who were gay, this number has now fallen to 25%.
http://atheism.about.com/od/catholicismandgays/a/gaypriests.htm
“Scandals involving priests who have sexually abused children have been a source of many problems for the Roman Catholic Church. One of those problems has been the situation of gay priests. Statements from Vatican officials have expressed strong disapproval of the very existence of homosexuals within the priesthood — [b]the presumption being[/b] that the sexual abuse problems are caused by gays and that if they disappear, then so will the problem.”
I would say it’s more than a presumption. The Vatican knows rightly that was the problem, they’re so secretive they never reveal the truth publicly. When you cage an animal it changes, just the same way if you cage a gay, you change his ways.
you provide a link to an Agnostic/atheist website about Catholic clergy and still no figures in the link. LMAO
‘just the same way if you cage a gay, you change his ways.’
please elaborate on this…have you caged many gays? and if so what way did they change?
[i]“you provide a link to an Agnostic/atheist website about Catholic clergy and still no figures in the link. LMAO”[/i]
lucky you aren’t a priest or your arse won’t be laughing
Tumbleweed.
Imagine the Vatican cutting down on gay Priests when the problem is said to be from peodophiles? strange decision, but hardly surprising as the majority of the children abused were young boys. didn’t the Greeks have a vibrant gay society and men-to-boys wasn’t uncommon at that time.
Sounds to me like the guy in the article has used a psychiatrist to repress his bisexuality.
Great first comment by Anon8 on the newsletter article.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/My-life-was-changed-by.4171827.jp?articlepage=2
I can’t stand Iris’s Quisling unionist politics, but her strongly worded remarks about gays,(look how they have stolen a beautiful little word in the English language to euphemize their perversion)shows us that she is exactly the right person to chair the Health Committee.
UMH you gonna tell where you got those figures? did you happen to buy magic beans off the same man?
How about those gays you’ve caged, what happened to them?
[b]RepublicanStones[/b]
A book by Father Donald Cozzens ‘Faith that Dares to Speak’ says that 50% of Priests in training were gay. Current estimates are around 20% some are higher.
If you like figures, there’s a good read on http://thras.blogspot.com, but I can’t post the full link as this website says it ss blacklisted. the thread title is called “Why Catholics Can’t Afford Gay Priests”. I’m sure the author and owner of the blog will be willing to give your sources for the figures if you so desire.
“85% of the cases that have come to light involve priests and teenage boys. Given that about 3% of the male population is homosexual, and estimates for the Catholic clergy are somewhere around 20%, then the 85% male-male abuse pattern can mean only one thing: homosexual priests are at the center of the sexual abuse problem for the Catholic Church. From these numbers, a gay priest is 23 times more likely than a heterosexual to be involved in an abuse scandal costing the Church millions of dollars. It’s a monetary issue. Catholics simply can’t afford gays any longer if they’re going to behave like this.”
to help you look for the link within that site, it’s dated 2005-09-26
UMH
One word – KINCORA.
also, don’t be surprised if the Vatican supports lowering the legal age of consent, just like the gay lobbyists.
West Belfast. Too right, they were a pile of gays too, who liked boys. Gays are the root of the problem!
Buggery was a capital offence until not so long ago. During the Second World War, Soviet POWs buggered each other by the barrow load andm ost others masturbated to relieve their obvious stress at the hands of their Nazi captors. Most Nazi leaders were also closet faggots and they relieved their stress by gassing Poles, Jews and gypsies. J Edna Hoover was a notorious faggot and we all know what he got off on to relieve his stress. Many RC priests were dragooned into their “vocation” as kids and, as they never mentally developed, they go for kids, ioften below the age of puberty. More studies are needed there.
Colm O’Gorman did well out of “the gift” Fr Fortune gave him.
A lot of homosexuality is social conditioning.
Guess what country is #2 in the world for male to female sex change operations? Good old Islamic Republic of Iran. Cutting the willies off would give Jim Gibney, Norris, O’Gorman and the rest of them food for thought. Misery likes company.
You can’t tell me the writer didn’t see the irony in this quote
“They were scratching the very place I itched most;”
I gotta say that between this tread and the other one there are few folks shooting themselves in the foot
I have read that the amount of Catholic Priests gay or pedophile is close to the percentage in the general population. But you won’t hear that from the media.
That may or may not be true, but to suggest the 50% of priest are gay is ridiculous. I am not a Catholic now, but I was an altar boy for many years when I was a kid. I was also involved with the other church organizations, workcamps etc and the vast majority of the priests I met and knew were solid human beings. If any of them were gay, it never showed. I feel as though non Catholics think there is some kind of epidemic. yes, things happened, and the coverup by some Cardinals, Bishops, etc is despicable. But its not some widespread thing, at least in my experiences.
At the same time, I would think that those clergy who are/were predators would like to get themselves in situations, like orphanages, where they can abuse children and be able to get away with it.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp
Eernan: You obviously picked that up in the media. Here is a Romish source.
The gay priest syndrome is a way for the New World Order to colonise new cash cows. That explains the O’Gorman case and the Paul Shanley case is largley explained by it and “repressed memory” bs as well.
Few people are sodomites. But sodomites (and c**k suckers) need more to join their cult. And, of course, to s**k their dicks.
Prisoners under stressful conditionsor animals or insects denied natural orifices also putt with the rough. Perverts, those who deviate from the natural order, are found there too.
C**k sucking is a manifestation of other sicknesses. Just like S&M;, kiddy f**king etc.
Have you see Fr Oliver O’Grady? That guy ain’t normal. Or Fr Brendan Smyth? They are a menas to an end: the enricchment of little boys like CColm O’Gorman through repressed therapy and the establishment of the New Godless order.
“The gay priest syndrome is a way for the New World Order to colonise new cash cows. That explains the O’Gorman case and the Paul Shanley case is largley explained by it and “repressed memory” bs as well.”
Dave, can you explain briefly what you mean? Are you saying the Media is focusing on these cases to tarnish religion in general.
Ahh….. ‘estimates’. I wonder, did he make potential priests fill out an application form on which they had to declare sexual orientation and wether or not they were paedophiles? LoL.
Gonzo
“THE News Letter has tracked down a man who claims he used to be gay, but – with the help of Iris Robinson’s favourite psychologist – became straight.”
Your first paragraph signals your scepticism, about this man Mr. Parker. Why do people find it difficult to accept that people do change.
Having just heard todays pod cast of the Nolan show and the comments from Mr Parker, what struck me was the confirmation that the sexulaity of everyone is not decided at birth, but can be a longer evolutioanry process. Upbringing, peers, cultural and social leanings can all help determine one´s sexuality.
The notion that you are born what you are is ridiculous, there is very little scientific evidence to suggest that tou are born gay. Research a number of years ago found that there was a possible genetic condition for homosexuality, however this only occurred in 2% of men who classed themselves as gay.
The reason there is scepticism towards this gentleman and Dr. Paul Millar, is that they contradict this loony notion that you are born gay end of story.
Think of the voice of gay pride within British popular culture of the late 1970´s Tom Robinson, now in a heterosexual marraige with children. Are we to beleive that Tom was not walking on the wild side when he sang “Glad To Be Gay”. Of course he was, he then changed and chose a differnt path. He has been roundly ostracised by many from gay circles since. Russell T. Davies who wrote Queer as Folk and of course now produces Doctor Who, also tackled this issue in his drama Bob and Rose.
People only have a problem with people changing from being gay because it counteracts the politically correct agenda of you re born gay, you have no choice.
I’m not sure about that psychologist straightened out that homosexual chap, but if forced to choose Iris Robinson could certainly turn me gay.
To me this is all very straightforward. If you were gay and then became straight, there are only two possibilities : either you weren’t gay in the first place, or you have successfully repressed your sexuality.
Helping people who are confused about their sexuality is a completely different concept from “curing homosexuals”, and I think perhaps it’s that difference that Iris failed to grasp.
I have avoided commenting on the endless assorted gay blogs but this is all becoming rather silly. The issue of what men do with other men in private fills me with more disinterest than anything else. The politics of why Iris Robinson said all this is interesting but no one seems to want to discuss that; they would rather discuss gays.
As to gays/paedophiles/priests. I will surprise no regulars here when I say I am not in favour of the teaching of the Roman Catholic church. However, all priests I have ever met (and I have met quite a few) have been singularly impressive and decent individuals. I may seriously disagree with their religion (and often I suspect their politics) but as people they have always seemed very decent. Some may be gay, some straight. Some may be celibate some not: I neither know nor care but suspect that most of the “evidence” about their sexual dalliances comes from sources unlikely to be pro RC and as such these sources must be viewed as potentially biased.
In terms of paedophiles again I have no evidence but suspect that precious few priests were or are paedophiles. The problem is probably that the enormity of the betrayal of trust, faith etc. is so awful when a supposed man of God does such a thing that it is easily remembered. Also of course those few paedophile priests because of the trust placed in them were in an excellent position to behave in this dreadful fashion.
However, as far as I am aware there is no evidence whatsoever that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles, nor priests be they gay straight. Protestants and specifically Presbyterians from the fundamentalist wing of the PCI (like me) should remember that Mr. Brown was one of ours, was not gay and was a dreadful paedophile.
My favourite teacher was later discovered to be a practising homosexual in unfortunate circumstances. I had no idea and had he wanted to he was in a position of trust and might have been able to abuse me. The fact he did not is of course utterly unsurprising: he was not a paedophile but a man who was gay. I would very happily let him teach my boys and put them in his care.
Now maybe just maybe we could get back to discussing NI politics and culture rather than gays.
When is the “News” letter going to officially change its name to “DUP VOICE”
Is there another newspaper in the UK that would print this shite, ok maybe the Daily Mail.
God, I used to hear the Newsletter editor on Radio 5 live being asked about Northern Ireland and I would almost get physically ill.
Expensive toilet paper.
Helping people who are confused about their sexuality is a completely different concept from “curing homosexuals”, and I think perhaps it’s that difference that Iris failed to grasp.
Posted by Comrade Stalin on Jun 11, 2008 @ 07:45 PM
Comrade when did Iris say she would cure homosexuals?
Comrade Stalin
“To me this is all very straightforward. If you were gay and then became straight, there are only two possibilities : either you weren’t gay in the first place, or you have successfully repressed your sexuality.”
So you are saying that Tom Robinson was never gay or indeed he may have now surpressed it. Why? This was a man at the forefront of gay rights at a time when gay bashing was acceptable. Never came across as someone ashamed of what he was.
People do change, nothing is as black and white as you imply, least of all sexuality. If you where born gay, one would expect then that there was a 50% chance of homosexuality being your “given” sexuality.
People do change, nothing is as black and white as you imply
True enough. But I think the man claimed as cured by Iris is something particular: a sexual abuse victim. Perhaps as a child he was developing as a heterosexual, when all of a sudden he was molested. I have heard of cases like this where the victim became effectively schizophrenic, and heard their molester as a voice in their head.
Certainly having once been dragged into homosexuality he had an urge to repeat it. What Iris’s doctor has done is restore a very confused person to his original inclination. That does not mean that he has the power to make men who are homosexual by their own choice into heterosexuals.
Comrade when did Iris say she would cure homosexuals?
On the Nolan show on Friday. I heard her saying it.
Keeper of the Sash of Rassilon :
So you are saying that Tom Robinson was never gay or indeed he may have now surpressed it. Why? This was a man at the forefront of gay rights at a time when gay bashing was acceptable. Never came across as someone ashamed of what he was.
I can’t explain that, but then, people do weird things sometimes. Like the guys in the US, like Ward Churchill, who tell everyone that they’re partially native American, (and go on to write lots of books about how horrible life is) and then it turns out that they’re lying. Or the people with poor social skills or bad breath who go around telling everyone they’ve got Asperger’s (or even describe themselves as “mildly autistic”). Sometimes people have such a strong need for a victim complex that they fabricate victimhood from scratch and use it as a vehicle to support their need for publicity.
Oh…dear
The pink fascists demand evidence for Iris’ cliams and when furnished they then deny the evidence!!
It seems that you cannot please these people who want to force their agenda no matter what!
The Daily Mail had an article this week that shows that AIDS is a sodomite disease
Comrade Stalin
“Sometimes people have such a strong need for a victim complex that they fabricate victimhood from scratch and use it as a vehicle to support their need for publicity”
Or of course a more simpler reason could be that people do change their mind.
To me this is all very straightforward. If you were gay and then became straight, there are only two possibilities : either you weren’t gay in the first place, or you have successfully repressed your sexuality.
There’s another possibility which I touched upon earlier: it’s bisexuality.
Think of the voice of gay pride within British popular culture of the late 1970´s Tom Robinson, now in a heterosexual marraige with children. Are we to beleive that Tom was not walking on the wild side when he sang “Glad To Be Gay”. Of course he was, he then changed and chose a differnt path.
Doctor Who
You clearly know as much about Tom Robinson as you do about genetics (post 17).
That does not mean that he has the power to make men who are homosexual by their own choice into heterosexuals.
Posted by PaddyReilly on Jun 11, 2008 @ 10:19 PM
Apart from Nolan himself, i dont think Iris or her friend claimed this.
Dec
“You clearly know as much about Tom Robinson as you do about genetics”
Hmmm very strange post indeed Dec.
Tom Robinson was a homosexual, he now is by his words heterosexual. That constitutes a complete turnaround in anyone´s book.
Furthermore I was not arguing about Genetics Professor Dec, I was saying that previous research suggested that there was perhaps a “gay gene”, however it only seemed to appear in 2% of gay men, which suggests to me that the notion that you can be born homosexual is highly unlikely.
No one questions the born gay thing as it acepted political correctness to think that way. However their is no scienfific evidence to say that is the case, just as their is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a pyhsciatric condition.
So waht´s your point Dec.
Comrade when did Iris say she would cure homosexuals?
On the Nolan show on Friday. I heard her saying it.
Just listened to the show, Iris didnt use the term CURE at all, she said helped but not cured.
She said: “I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals — trying to turn away from what they are engaged in.
“I’m happy to put any homosexual in touch with this gentleman and I have met people who have turned around and become heterosexuals. They are married and are having families. It does work.”
The only person i know , not surprisingly , using the term cured in the great fat one Nolan himself. NOt like him to stir things up.