Replies

It's called logic.

OK, so your standard for "proof" concerning an issue entirely affecting another person is your logic.

If you had thought about this question...

Nice ad-hominem dig there. Why the veiled insults?

...you would have figured out the answer. Let's look at the question: you're asking how we know that homosexuals are actually romantically attracted to members of the same-sex.

No, that wasn't my question. You'd like it to be my question, since that's the one you want to answer.

My question was: "...what do you have, except for their "word for it", to prove they ever were 'gay'?"

This question was in direct relation to your assertion that we have nothing but the guy's "word for it" that he has overcome his homosexuality. The question was meant to bring you face-to-face with your own standard.

Put another way: If his word isn't enough to "prove" his change, why is it enough to prove his homosexuality?

Well, what reason would they have to form relations with members of the same sex, except for the fact that they're attracted to them?

Thus, I conclude that they probably are what they claim to be.

This is what passes for logic in your mind? Have you ever had formal logic training?

Your standard for "proof" boils down to: I can't think of any other reason for it, so I must be right.

Nice.

On the other hand, if you look at the people who say they are formerly queer. What reason could they have for forming relations with members of the opposite sex? Why did they 'change'?

More of what you call "logic." You formulate a theory of your own to explain the motives of another person, assign that theory to the guy who isn't there to disagree, then pat yourself on the back for reaching a consensus with yourself.

Wow.

I assume...

Yes, you do. Quite a lot about a great many things, actually.

...that religious and societal concerns matter greatly, since religion plays a very large role in most of these 'conversion therapies'.

LOL! Your "logic" reads like a case study of logical fallacies instead.

Now, even beyond presuming to assign a motive to an unknown person in his most personal of choices and behaviors, you'll go the further step to presume to know what the motives of "most of these 'conversion therapies'" are!

It appears your hubris knows no bounds.

Thus, I conclude that their attractions probably haven't changed at all, but that their behavior has.

Of course you do! That's the only conclusion you could come to, given the self-serving echo chamber of a mind you're using.

I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one of those people, people who imagine her to be a man. Not in one hundred years.

No, I imagine not. But I'm sure you'd know precisely why she'd want to, even before she knew it herself!

Put another way: If his word isn't enough to "prove" his change, why is it enough to prove his homosexuality?

As I have already said, because there are no other forces pushing the person toward the latter.

This is what passes for logic in your mind? Have you ever had formal logic training?

The problem is that I was not utilizing formal logic, but informal logic.

Now, even beyond presuming to assign a motive to an unknown person in his most personal of choices and behaviors, you'll go the further step to presume to know what the motives of "most of these 'conversion therapies'" are!

I do know. They're almost exclusively Christian, usually fundamentalist.

The rest of your post is one big ad hominem (a mild version of which sparked your outrage), probably showing something about yourself. I hate to say it, but you argue like a liberal.