Homosexuality a choice?

[Macarthur]

I found this diddy from Bishop Spong and thought is was interesting. I would like to get some feedback.


http://images.agoramedia.com/spong/hd_qa.gif



Dr. Mabe from Asheville, NC writes:
"I agree with your position on homosexuality. Can you please point me toward good studies verifying homosexuality as biological rather than environmental? I would like information to provide my colleagues when we discuss this issue." Dear Dr. Mabe,

The doctors I worked with were at the Cornell School of Medicine in New York City and the work was in papers not in books. There is a general reluctance among medical scientists to say what causes sexual orientation, either hetero or homo. There appears to be no reluctance to say that it is not something people choose, it is a reality to which they awaken. There seems to be some physical link though it does not appear to follow any genetic rules. Yet when I address a large group of say 1000 gay and lesbian people, I know by sight that there is a higher instance of physiological differences among the members of this group that would not be as readily visible in a group of 1000 heterosexual people. However, no one can judge an individual's sexual orientation on the basis of visual data because stereotypes do not hold. Masculine appearing women and effeminate appearing men can be quite heterosexual; and feminine, delicate women and athletic, muscular men can be homosexual. I know no medical scientist who thinks sexual orientation is a volitional decision. If that cannot be demonstrated, the whole argument against gay people falls apart. I find it interesting that most heterosexual people cannot remember when they chose to be heterosexual. That is because they did not choose, they awakened to their identity. Yet in a rather irrational fashion they still think that homosexual people choose to be homosexual. When we talk of "sexual preference," we assume the prejudice that is so deep in our culture.

When seeking explanations, the Cornell doctor who guided my study talked not of a genetic connection but of a neuro-chemical connection. They believed it was somehow linked to the amount of testosterone present in the mother's bloodstream at the moment the brain of the fetus was sexed with its identity, both of which are quite random. They dismissed out of hand environmental influences and considered that argument to be patently ignorant.

I hope this helps.

-- John Shelby Spong

[brother vinny]

If it's from Spong, it's probably wrong.

[Sacrificial Ram]

If it's from Spong, it's probably wrong.
In this case, the opinion he gave , which was actually passing on the opinon of researchers at Cornell, was a fairly accurate representation of the situation. It is not universal, but it is one that seems to have a great degree of evidence for it. I don't think it is the WHOLE story, but I don't think the
whole story is known.

[rach12]

If it's from Spong, it's probably wrong.
Hmmm....sounded pretty reasonable to me.

[Solly]

I found this diddy from Bishop Spong and thought is was interesting. I would like to get some feedback.
*snip*

I hope this helps.

-- John Shelby Spong

[/size][/font]

As I suspected all along, Robyn Banks was really Spong.

On a serious note, this just seems to take an all or nothing approach to the issue, as if homosexuality is not learned but just present in all circumstances. I would not seek to deny what seems to be clear medical evidence that this sort of thing happens, but it does also appear that homosexuality can be a learned behaviour.
For instance, I heard an interview on the radio by an activist for prison reform in America, based on his experiences as a black gay man who spent time in a Texas jail. He was regularly abused and raped while there, but not by those one would determine as being 'homosexual' men, but by otherwise heterosexual black and white men, who were gang leaders etc, who used rape as a means of control and domination, even referring to their rapees as women. It was a matter of macho-ness, not effeminity.
On the other hand, there seems to be a rise in celebrity/chic lesbianism amongst the stars, and people I have known who have otherwise lived a normal heterosexual life, including having children, who then decide to be lesbians, either for its chic value, or because they 'have had enough of men'.

[JamesD]

Have any gay brothers or sisters vinny? Any gay family? How about a gay friend? If you do sit down and have an honest talk with them about being gay. When did they know that they were gay. It might surprise you just how young they knew. Just to pull your leg a little.....
When did you choose your "sexual preference"? Were you sitting in a classroom, and one day thought, "Do I want to ask Tommy or Susan to the dance next week?" "Gee Tommy is cute but Susan has a really nice personality". :wink:

I'll bet you knew you liked the opposite sex long before puberty. Without giving it any thought at all. We all do it. Straights and gays alike. Who would choose to be gay in this homophobic country? If you do have an honest talk with anyone gay, ask them what they have faced since coming out.

On the other hand, there seems to be a rise in celebrity/chic lesbianism amongst the stars, and people I have known who have otherwise lived a normal heterosexual life, including having children, who then decide to be lesbians, either for its chic value, or because they 'have had enough of men'.It's easier in Hollywood to come out now. Rock Hudson couldn't do it most of his life. He even had a fake marriage. I too know gays who married and had kids. They tried their best to hide and fit into straight society. They hide from their families, and friends who they were. There's no "chic value" about ending a marriage, loosing your children, family, friends, home ect.
Nobody decides to be lesbian, or gay. Nobody says I've had enough of men/women. Would you?! I've been tired of lovers before, but not a gender. Again I'll say sit down and ask them face to face about being gay.

[Sacrificial Ram]

As I suspected all along, Robyn Banks was really Spong.

On a serious note, this just seems to take an all or nothing approach to the issue, as if homosexuality is not learned but just present in all circumstances. I would not seek to deny what seems to be clear medical evidence that this sort of thing happens, but it does also appear that homosexuality can be a learned behaviour.
For instance, I heard an interview on the radio by an activist for prison reform in America, based on his experiences as a black gay man who spent time in a Texas jail. He was regularly abused and raped while there, but not by those one would determine as being 'homosexual' men, but by otherwise heterosexual black and white men, who were gang leaders etc, who used rape as a means of control and domination, even referring to their rapees as women. It was a matter of macho-ness, not effeminity.
On the other hand, there seems to be a rise in celebrity/chic lesbianism amongst the stars, and people I have known who have otherwise lived a normal heterosexual life, including having children, who then decide to be lesbians, either for its chic value, or because they 'have had enough of men'.
That is a different situation. That is 'situational homosexuality'.. where these people are in a sitation where no women are available. If these people were released, and in regular society, they would go to their preference of the opposite sex. Also, if you actually READ the Kinsey
report on it, there is a definate amount of steps of human attraction , from
one extreme, where someone does not find the same sex appealing at all, to the other extreme, where one does not find the same sex appealing at all. It is not all 'black and white'.. but shades of grey between.

[Solly]

That is a different situation. That is 'situational homosexuality'.. where these people are in a sitation where no women are available. If these people were released, and in regular society, they would go to their preference of the opposite sex.
Right, I don't think i denied that fact, and i didn't just reference prison either.

Also, if you actually READ the Kinsey report on it

My humble apololiges for not reading a text that is not being referenced in this thread.

...there is a definite amount of steps of human attraction, from one extreme, where someone does not find the same sex appealing at all, to the other extreme, where one does not find the same sex appealing at all. It is not all 'black and white'.. but shades of grey between.

Which goes to make the point I was trying to make. that it's not a black and white issue. You trying to take credit for my post? :poke:
This is the point, that though there looks like there are biological factors, ie testosterone levels in the womb, yet that is not the sole reason for it, and that environmental factors can provoke or reduce the desires, or stir desires that were not there in the first place. Prison is one such environment, old public schools in the UK are another, drug use is another, bohemian celebrity lifestyles another, even pressure upon celebrities to present an image....
After all - and here I risk all on a probably inadequate analogy - most of us would be squeamish about blood and open bodies. Yet some people adjust to working in abattoirs and hospital surgeries.

[Monkey Boy]

Why does it matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not? What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of your business either way.

[Jade]

Why does it matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not? What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of your business either way.
Based upon this logic, people can construct atomic bombs in the privacy of their bedrooms, and it would be none of my business. Right, Monkey Boy?

[Solly]

Well, someone thinks we should know about it, as February is LGBT awareness month in the UK, and they want to go into schools, even primary schools, and tell the kids all about what they do in the bedroom.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Based upon this logic, people can construct atomic bombs in the privacy of their bedrooms, and it would be none of my business. Right, Monkey Boy?
Actually, an atomic bomb could hurt you. Someones private sexual activities
can not.

[brother vinny]

Actually, an atomic bomb could hurt you. Someones private sexual activities
can not.


(Note: I posted under my wife's handle in error. Please attribute Jade's last post to me.)

Monkey Boy didn't specify.

[Solly]

*cough*AIDS*cough*

[suffer for joy]

Who would choose to be gay in this homophobic country?
Someone extremely confused.

[rach12]

This thread seems to have very little 'natural science' and a whole lot of personal opinion.

[Alien]

Based upon this logic, people can construct atomic bombs in the privacy of their bedrooms, and it would be none of my business. Right, Monkey Boy?

The phrase "in the privacy of their bedrooms" is used to refer to sexual activity, not making atomic bombs.

[Jack777]

Homosexuality a choice?

Yes.

[Monkey Boy]

Monkey Boy didn't specify.

Since you need it spelled out for you, let me clarify:

What people do with their sex organs in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of your business either way.

[brother vinny]

Since you need it spelled out for you, let me clarify:

What people do with their sex organs in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of your business either way.

Thanks for clearing that up, Monkey Boy. Language can be ambiguous, and I want to make sure I understand the position I'm arguing against before I argue against it.

So, if a 40-year-old man places his sex organ in his 14-year-old daughter, it's okay so long as this happens in the privacy of his bedroom, right?

[Tickle Me Goody]

Also, if you actually READ the Kinsey
report on it, there is a definate amount of steps of human attraction , from
one extreme, where someone does not find the same sex appealing at all, to the other extreme, where one does not find the same sex appealing at all. I recently read part of "intellectual morons". If even 2% of what it reveals about Kinsey is correct, then I would not believe Kinsey's report at all.

A book review summary may be found at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1322097/posts




Chapter two, “Science: How a Pervert Launched the Sexual Revolution,” is probably the best short biography ever done about Alfred Kinsey. Besides cataloguing his faults and failings it is meticulously researched and endnoted. Before I summarize this chapter, I must say, “mea culpa.” Not only was I up and taking nourishment at this time, but I was an adult and like almost all I found Kinsey’s conclusions iconoclastic and in the finest traditions of science and medicine.



Alas, how wrong I was. Dr. Kinsey was a troubled person. From an early age he inserted foreign objects into his urethra to enhance the orgasms associated with masturbation. His marriage remained unconsummated for months. As a scientist Kinsey studied wasps and went on field trips with young men. On these field trips Kinsey insisted on repeated, social naked bathing. Besides swapping his wife he was a homosexual with a large pornographic library in the attic of his home. Eventually, Kinsey opined that there were only three kinds of sexual pathology: celibacy, abstinence and delayed marriage.



His sexual publications including The Kinsey Report were not only widely acclaimed as literature but also as science. Unfortunately, Kinsey never did a simple random sample when he reported that ten per cent of males were homosexual. His work on children and his declaration that even infants were orgasmic was based on case histories he took from pedophiles. That Kinsey did this research with forethought is documented by his hiring a friend to claim to have done the statistics. Kinsey would frequently use “mean” and “median” interchangeably; he obviously did not know the difference between the two.



As time passed Kinsey became even more bizarre. In interviewing homosexuals he frequently had sex with them. Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy witnessed one such experience with a colleague—Dr. Earl Marsh. At other times he induced orgastic pleasure by putting a rope around his testicles and then hanging from this rope. Understandably, in time he required medical treatment and hospitalization.

Kinsey’s later book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, was equally flawed. The classic debunking was done in 1981 by Judith Reisman. Besides the flawed statistics, it is clear that Kinsey based a good deal of his conclusions on the basis of prostitutes’ self-reports.

When you sum it all up, the conclusion is inescapable: Kinsey’s work was not scientific state-of-the art knowledge, but a fraud grounded in no small part in his own sexual perversions. I am not of the opinion that personal life can be separated from one’s professional life such that one does not influence the other. In Kinsey’s case the problem is even worse—the scientist’s conclusions were mostly a function of his own psychopathology and a desire to normalize his pathology.


Sounds yicky!

[Monkey Boy]

Thanks for clearing that up, Monkey Boy. Language can be ambiguous, and I want to make sure I understand the position I'm arguing against before I argue against it.

So, if a 40-year-old man places his sex organ in his 14-year-old daughter, it's okay so long as this happens in the privacy of his bedroom, right?

Your pedantry grows tiresome.

What consenting adults do with their sex organs in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of your business either way.

[brother vinny]

Your pedantry grows tiresome.

What consenting adults do with their sex organs in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of your business either way.

Sorry to be pedantic. Please be patient with me.

I submit that the distinction you've made ("consenting adults") is arbitrary. Some U.S. states accord adulthood to a female at age 21, others at age 18. Some people would reckon a female to be an adult after her first menstrual period ("Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed," as it has been eloquently suggested).

For the sake of argument, let's say the law of the land holds that 14 is the age of consent. What say you then?

[rach12]

Sorry to be pedantic. Please be patient with me.

I submit that the distinction you've made ("consenting adults") is arbitrary. Some U.S. states accord adulthood to a female at age 21, others at age 18. Some people would reckon a female to be an adult after her first menstrual period ("Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed," as it has been eloquently suggested).

For the sake of argument, let's say the law of the land holds that 14 is the age of consent. What say you then?
I find it fascinating, but mainly annoying, that you apparently claim to know EXACTLY what the most contentious book ever written in the history of humankind has to say about homosexuality, and then have difficulty deciphering one measly little sentence on a messageboard.


Why should anyone be patient after such a display of utter nincompoopery?? :whack:

[brother vinny]

I find it fascinating, but mainly annoying, that so many people know EXACTLY what the most contentious book ever written in the history of humankind says about homosexuality only to have difficulty deciphering one measly little sentence on a messageboard.


Please show me the sentence you think I'm having trouble deciphering.


Why should anyone be patient after such a display of utter nincompoopery?? :whack:

If allowed to chase this rabbit trail to its logical end, I believe I have something of relevance to say.

I've been respectful and kind here. Is there a reason to personally attack me?

[Spinyn00bman]

nincompoopery??

Great word. But, I think, misused.

Anyone ever wonder how the theory of evolution accounts for homosexuals? How would homosexual sex help keep the species going? Can that theory explain homosexuality?

[brother vinny]

Anyone ever wonder how the theory of evolution accounts for homosexuals? How would homosexual sex help keep the species going? Can that theory explain homosexuality?

The evolutionist would explain it as a built-in mechanism against overpopulation, IIRC.

[Spinyn00bman]

The evolutionist would explain it as a built-in mechanism against overpopulation, IIRC.
Well that's just plain pathetic.

[Monkey Boy]

Sorry to be pedantic. Please be patient with me.

I submit that the distinction you've made ("consenting adults") is arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary at all. I used the word "consent" because any sexual act not involving mutual consent is assault. And I use the word "adult" because the aforementioned consent must be given by an individual capable of understanding the consequences of his/her actions.

Some U.S. states accord adulthood to a female at age 21, others at age 18. Some people would reckon a female to be an adult after her first menstrual period ("Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed," as it has been eloquently suggested).

For the sake of argument, let's say the law of the land holds that 14 is the age of consent. What say you then?

If in some hypothetical world the age of consent was 14, any consenting sexual behavior by a 14-year-old adult would be nobody's business but that individual and his/her partner(s). That's what "age of consent" means.

But we live in the real world where the age of consent is not 14, so what is your point?

[Minnesota]

Homosexuality a choice?

Yes.
WOW! what an absolutely stunning argument.

Anyone ever wonder how the theory of evolution accounts for homosexuals?
I rather doubt it because I believe most people who accept the process know that the relatively small number of occurrences don't compromise it.
How would homosexual sex help keep the species going?
It doesn't, but then there a lot of nonproductive behaviors that have nothing to do with the success of evolution.
Can that theory explain homosexuality?
Nope. It isn't within the scope of evolutionary theories to explain specific predispositions or drives, other than to show how they may or may not impinge on evolution.


And, by the way, welcome to Tweb. :thumb:


[in answer to SpinyNorman73]
The evolutionist would explain it as a built-in mechanism against overpopulation, IIRC.
Well, you don't RC.

[brother vinny]

It's not arbitrary at all. I used the word "consent" because any sexual act not involving mutual consent is assault. And I use the word "adult" because the aforementioned consent must be given by an individual capable of understanding the consequences of his/her actions.


That, again, is arbitrary. A mentally handicapped person may never fully understand the consequences of his/her actions. Do we then deny such persons the freedom to have sex when they are of age?

I would also argue that even people who are fully mentally healthy do not always know the full consequences of their actions. I doubt very much that the male airline steward who originally brought HIV to the US and spread it through the bathhouses knew the consequences of his actions beforehand.


If in some hypothetical world the age of consent was 14, any consenting sexual behavior by a 14-year-old adult would be nobody's business but that individual and his/her partner(s). That's what "age of consent" means.

But we live in the real world where the age of consent is not 14, so what is your point?

My point is "age of consent" is an arbitrary concept (as that great pedophile poet R. Kelly once said, "Age ain't nothing but a number"). Great Britain introduced legislation some time ago that would lower the age of consent to 14 (I hope it didn't pass). And there are cultures that allow marriage at 14 or even less (such as the State of Kansas, when any minor of any age can get married with parental consent).

Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, you support laws based upon the arbitrary concept of "age of consent," so in effect you're saying, "People should be allowed to do what they wish with their privates in their bedrooms under conditions I'm comfortable with." You don't really believe in not legislating against certain naughty activities in the bedroom; you're just more comfortable with some forms rather than others.

[brother vinny]

Well, you don't RC.

Thanks. The whole idea sounded like bunk when I first heard it from my evolutionist then-girlfriend over ten years ago, but I didn't know how to counter the idea.

[piso mojado]

if homosexuality isn't a choice,then how can a person go from being convinced that they are gay to being straight?

[Minnesota]

if homosexuality isn't a choice,then how can a person go from being convinced that they are gay to being straight?
Rarely has this been seen among "hard core" homosexuals, those who were always attracted to their own sex and never had any attraction to those of the opposite sex, AND in which the change has proven itself over a number of years. In most cases, (and this also occurs in heterosexuals who become homosexuals) the change occurs in those who harbored latent heterosexual tendencies, many of which would probably be better labeled bisexuals.

[Monkey Boy]

That, again, is arbitrary. A mentally handicapped person may never fully understand the consequences of his/her actions. Do we then deny such persons the freedom to have sex when they are of age?

It's not about denying freedoms, Vinny. It's about protecting the vulnerable from being exploited. A mentally handicapped person can be free to have a healthy relationship and at the same time deserves protection from exploitation. Don't you agree?

I would also argue that even people who are fully mentally healthy do not always know the full consequences of their actions. I doubt very much that the male airline steward who originally brought HIV to the US and spread it through the bathhouses knew the consequences of his actions beforehand.

And I also doubt that Adolf Hitler's parents knew the consequences of their procreative actions beforehand either. By your logic, people shouldn't do anything, since any action can have possible negative unforeseen consequences.

Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, you support laws based upon the arbitrary concept of "age of consent," so in effect you're saying, "People should be allowed to do what they wish with their privates in their bedrooms under conditions I'm comfortable with."

As I said, I support laws that protect the vulnerable members of our society from exploitation. If an arbitrary "age of consent" is a reasonable and effective means to do so, then I support it.

You don't really believe in not legislating against certain naughty activities in the bedroom; you're just more comfortable with some forms rather than others.

You seem to have difficulty telling the difference between the exploitation of a child and consenting activity between adults. I don't.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Rarely has this been seen among "hard core" homosexuals, those who were always attracted to their own sex and never had any attraction to those of the opposite sex, AND in which the change has proven itself over a number of years. In most cases, (and this also occurs in heterosexuals who become homosexuals) the change occurs in those who harbored latent heterosexual tendencies, many of which would probably be better labeled bisexuals.
Can you cite a source for your data?

[rach12]

Can you cite a source for your data?
How about direct observation and personal experience? Doesn't that count, too?

[Tickle Me Goody]

How about direct observation and personal experience? Doesn't that count, too?
Sure, but others will cite contradictory "direct observation and personal experience".

Minn usually has a source for his sweeping statements. I simply asked for the source of this data. Do you have a problem with that?

[brother vinny]

It's not about denying freedoms, Vinny. It's about protecting the vulnerable from being exploited. A mentally handicapped person can be free to have a healthy relationship and at the same time deserves protection from exploitation. Don't you agree?

Sure.


And I also doubt that Adolf Hitler's parents knew the consequences of their procreative actions beforehand either. By your logic, people shouldn't do anything, since any action can have possible negative unforeseen consequences.


Actually, by my logic, the things that people do (including those things which they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms) should be attended by rules that, when followed, protect the individual and society. The aforementioned flight attendant broke those rules repeatedly.

As for the case of Hitler, some other rules (not those pertaining to sex-- at least, as far as I know) were broken.


As I said, I support laws that protect the vulnerable members of our society from exploitation. If an arbitrary "age of consent" is a reasonable and effective means to do so, then I support it.


What if there were no "age of consent" laws? Your problem with people who oppose homosexuality is because you believe the gender barrier is arbitrary, isn't that correct? You'd like those people to not pass legislation based upon their arbitrary moral standards, right? I'm sure groups like NAMBLA would appreciate it if you wouldn't legislate their bedroom activities based on your arbitrary moral standards, too.


You seem to have difficulty telling the difference between the exploitation of a child and consenting activity between adults. I don't.

Not at all. What I have difficulty with is the inconsistency of your willingness to pass legislation based upon one arbitrary moral code (that of age) while opposing another group's willingness to do the same (based on gender).

[rach12]

Sure, but others will cite contradictory "direct observation and personal experience".

Minn usually has a source for his sweeping statements. I simply asked for the source of this data.

And if Minn did cite a source for his "sweeping statements" you'd still find contradictory evidence. I have yet to read one piece of medical research that found homosexuals (not bisexuals) can become heterosexual. I have yet to meet a homosexual that says this is possible and you'd think if anyone knows about being gay, it's them.


I just find it interesting that many here use the "eye witness account in the Bible" to support the Flood, but when it doesn't suit a particular position, eye witness accounts are discounted.



Do you have a problem with that?
:lol: Snippy a lot?

[Minnesota]

goodygoody,



Researchers are likely to
misclassify bisexual people as homosexual,
which makes it more likely that clients will
pursue heterosexual behavior even without
treatment. A finding that bisexual men can
be taught to strengthen their heterosexual
behavior is not equivalent to changing sexual
orientation. The earliest study attempting
to show reversal of homosexual orientation
through long-term psychoanalytic
intervention reported a 27% success rate in
“heterosexual shift.”12 But only 18% of
those research subjects were exclusively
homosexual to begin with. Fifty percent of
the successfully treated men were more
appropriately labeled bisexual.

Other studies that report higher success
rates share this classification problem. For
instance, Mayerson and Lief report that half
of their 19 subjects were engaging in heterosexual
behavior 4.5 years post-treatment.13
These subjects were actually bisexual going
into treatment, however. Exclusively homosexual
subjects reported little or no change
in that study. Another psychoanalytic study
reported virtually no increase in heterosexual
behavior in a group of homosexual men.14
One of the studies used most often to
demonstrate that homosexuals can be
“changed” was conducted by Masters and
Johnson.15 This study also included a number
of subjects who were not primarily or
exclusively homosexual in their stated orientation,
however.

Finally, follow-up of those subjects who
meet the subjective criteria for “successful
change” in sexual orientation is either poor
or nonexistent in conversion therapy studies.
16 Adequate follow-up is likely to uncover
cases of reversion to homosexual behavior,
which would further reduce the therapy’s
success rate. Birk described a combinationapproach
group format for treating homosexuality
and claimed that 38% of his subjects
achieved “solid heterosexual shifts.”17
Nonetheless, he acknowledged that these
shifts represented “an adaptation to life, not
a metamorphosis,” and that homosexual
fantasies and activity are ongoing, even for
the “happily married” individual. Similarly,
a religiously-oriented conversion therapy
program described by Pattison and Pattison
reveals that more than 90% continued to
have homosexual fantasies and behavior
after treatment.19

More comprehensive examinations of
conversion therapy studies have been published
elsewhere.20 Those reviews show that
no study claiming success for conversion
therapy meets the research standards that
would support such a claim.
Finally, it should be noted that almost
all published research on conversion therapy
deals with male homosexuals, not lesbians.
Presumably, this reflects a general
devaluation of women in clinical research
agendas, as well as a greater tolerance on
the part of some heterosexual males for lesbians
than for gay men. Nevertheless, conversion
therapists continue to apply their
findings to women, even though their own
studies do not support that extension.

smiley source (http://www.iglss.org/media/files/Angles_41.pdf)

[Tickle Me Goody]

And if Minn did cite a source for his "sweeping statements" you'd still find contradictory evidence. I have yet to read one piece of medical research that found homosexuals (not bisexuals) can become heterosexual. I have yet to meet a homosexual that says this is possible and you'd think if anyone knows about being gay, it's them.Nice of you to read my mind and know what I think. A remarkable talent -- except that you are wrong in the assessment.

Thankfully, Minn ignored you and gave me the reference I requested.

I just find it interesting that many here use the "eye witness account in the Bible" to support the Flood, but when it doesn't suit a particular position, eye witness accounts are discounted.Are you talking to me or just muttering to yourself?

:lol: Snippy a lot?Only to those who deserve it. You did.:rasberry:

[Tickle Me Goody]

goodygoody,




snip (http://www.iglss.org/media/files/Angles_41.pdf)

smiley source
Thanks, Minn. Now if we can get Rach to stop answering for you and stop "reading my mind", it would be nice.

GG

[Monkey Boy]

Actually, by my logic, the things that people do (including those things which they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms) should be attended by rules that, when followed, protect the individual and society.

I fail to see why how two people choose to use their genitalia in the privacy of their home is anything that you or I or "society" needs protection from.

The aforementioned flight attendant broke those rules repeatedly.

Wait a minute here. Weren't his partners knowledgable adults aware of the risks and consequences of their behavior? Why do you feel the need to be their nanny?

What if there were no "age of consent" laws?

What if there were no laws against murder? What is the point of your hypothetical questions?

Your problem with people who oppose homosexuality is because you believe the gender barrier is arbitrary, isn't that correct?

No. I think that unless the people who oppose homosexuality can show how someone else's homosexual behavior hurts them (the "opposer") directly, then they should shut up and mind their own business.

You'd like those people to not pass legislation based upon their arbitrary moral standards, right? I'm sure groups like NAMBLA would appreciate it if you wouldn't legislate their bedroom activities based on your arbitrary moral standards, too.

In general I prefer government that treats it citizens like adults and doesn't tell them how to live their lives. I think government is perfectly right, however, to write laws to protect the vulnerable. You call that "arbitrary". I call it "humane".

What I have difficulty with is the inconsistency of your willingness to pass legislation based upon one arbitrary moral code (that of age) while opposing another group's willingness to do the same (based on gender).

Age of consent laws protect children from victimization by adults. Who do anti-sodomy laws protect and from what? Nobody and nothing.

[brother vinny]

I fail to see why how two people choose to use their genitalia in the privacy of their home is anything that you or I or "society" needs protection from.


Tell Ryan White that. Oh yeah, you can't: he's dead!


Wait a minute here. Weren't his partners knowledgable adults aware of the risks and consequences of their behavior? Why do you feel the need to be their nanny?


They had no idea that an STD of the lethal variety was on the loose, otherwise I'm sure they would've been more discriminate.


What if there were no laws against murder? What is the point of your hypothetical questions?


The point is you're trying to legitimize activity that has until our generation been declared illegal, many of the reasons for which are health-related as in the case.


No. I think that unless the people who oppose homosexuality can show how someone else's homosexual behavior hurts them (the "opposer") directly, then they should shut up and mind their own business.


And I think the NAMBLA members would be able to phrase their objections to you using much the same language.


In general I prefer government that treats it citizens like adults and doesn't tell them how to live their lives. I think government is perfectly right, however, to write laws to protect the vulnerable. You call that "arbitrary". I call it "humane".


You called it arbitrary earlier: "If an arbitrary 'age of consent' is a reasonable and effective means to do so, then I support it." That's what you said.

Why are you trying to impose your standards of what's humane on the pedophile community?


Age of consent laws protect children from victimization by adults. Who do anti-sodomy laws protect and from what? Nobody and nothing.

Wrong. If Patient Zero (the steward who brought AIDS to America) had obeyed sodomy laws, Ryan White might still be alive. Mistakes like a patient in Arizona who mistakenly received a transfusion of HIV-infected blood could have been averted. Liberace, Rock Hudson, Authur Ashe, and many others might still be among us. All it took was one person breaking sodomy laws to cause all the mischeif and sorrow AIDS has brought to us.

[rach12]

Nice of you to read my mind and know what I think. A remarkable talent -- except that you are wrong in the assessment.

Thankfully, Minn ignored you and gave me the reference I requested.
Nice of YOU to assume I was being a jerk in my initial response. It was an innocent couple of questions that you chose to take defensively. But I do apologize for making the assumption you would reply a certain way.



Are you talking to me or just muttering to yourself?
Nope. Making a simple observation.


Only to those who deserve it. You did.:rasberry:
As I said earlier, my initial response was nothing more than a simple set of questions that you obviously misinterpeted as obnoxious. Perhaps you've been the target of obnoxious posters in the and your defensiveness comes naturally now.


However, now that I see you come from the Socrates School of Poster Etiquette, I shall treat you accordingly.

[rach12]

Thanks, Minn. Now if we can get Rach to stop answering for you and stop "reading my mind", it would be nice.

GG
Oh geez, what a freakin' drama queen. Get over your poor abused self already. :violin:

[Tickle Me Goody]

Oh geez, what a freakin' drama queen. Get over your poor abused self already. :violin::bow:
O.K. Sorry.
I just overracted and took your comments as criticism wh ich they obviously were not.

GG

[Monkey Boy]

Tell Ryan White that. Oh yeah, you can't: he's dead!

Ryan White held no animosity towards homosexuals when he was alive. For you to use his name in this way is disgusting.

The point is you're trying to legitimize activity that has until our generation been declared illegal, many of the reasons for which are health-related as in the case.

What makes you think any activity between consenting adults needs legitimization? That's my whole point.

And I think the NAMBLA members would be able to phrase their objections to you using much the same language.

Why don't you give it a try. Go ahead. Justify pedophilia to me.

Why are you trying to impose your standards of what's humane on the pedophile community?

Because I believe a role of government is to prevent the exploitation of the (relatively) weak by the (relatively) powerful. You know, the "rule of law" and that whole thing.

Wrong. If Patient Zero (the steward who brought AIDS to America) had obeyed sodomy laws, Ryan White might still be alive. Mistakes like a patient in Arizona who mistakenly received a transfusion of HIV-infected blood could have been averted. Liberace, Rock Hudson, Authur Ashe, and many others might still be among us. All it took was one person breaking sodomy laws to cause all the mischeif and sorrow AIDS has brought to us.

And if a different Patient Zero had just washed his hands, 19 SARS victims might still be alive in Toronto. Are you going to write laws mandating hand washing? Do you think it would do any good?

There are lots of behaviors we humans engage in that encourage the spread of disease. Why single out homosexual sex, which has got to be one of the lesser modes of transmission? It sounds like you just have a thing against homosexuals.

[brother vinny]

Ryan White held no animosity towards homosexuals when he was alive. For you to use his name in this way is disgusting.

Regardless of his own feelings, he contracted HIV due to receiving blood from a donor who had HIV, which eventually can be traced back to Patient Zero.

And, although you have resorted to bringing emotional language into this issue, I have no animosity towards homosexuals.


What makes you think any activity between consenting adults needs legitimization? That's my whole point.


Your point was mooted as soon as you admitted that adulthood is arbitrary.


Why don't you give it a try. Go ahead. Justify pedophilia to me.


It disgusts me to even try. But I'm here as an absolutist, trying to show the bankruptcy of your relativistic world-view, so here goes.

Using your own words:

"No. I think that unless the people who oppose [pedophilia] can show how someone else's [pedophile] behavior hurts them (the "opposer") directly, then they should shut up and mind their own business."


Because I believe a role of government is to prevent the exploitation of the (relatively) weak by the (relatively) powerful. You know, the "rule of law" and that whole thing. (bold emphasis added)


Why are you trying to impose your beliefs on others?


And if a different Patient Zero had just washed his hands, 19 SARS victims might still be alive in Toronto. Are you going to write laws mandating hand washing? Do you think it would do any good?


You're really going to compare 19 SARS deaths to the spread of HIV? That's pretty bold.


There are lots of behaviors we humans engage in that encourage the spread of disease. Why single out homosexual sex, which has got to be one of the lesser modes of transmission? It sounds like you just have a thing against homosexuals.

Not at all. And I don't single out homosexual sex. Promiscuity in heterosexual sex should also be outlawed, as this is another vector (it's a vector you'd protect, though).

In addition, there's the societal impact to be taken into account. This whole rabbit trail began with you saying, "Why does it matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not? What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of your business either way." By and large, I'd agree with that sentiment. If gays/lesbians were content to keep what they do confined to the bedroom in monogamous relationships (this latter due to the risk of spread of disease), I'd be content. Based on past behaviour, however, I'd say this is pretty nigh impossible, due to A) the norm in the gay community would appear to be promiscuity, and B) the trend among those in the gay community is to begin with their freedom in the bedroom and then extend it into the classrooom, the boardroom, and the courtroom, which doesn't make it very private at all.

[Sparko]

But we live in the real world where the age of consent is not 14, so what is your point? Really? In the Netherlands, the age of consent is 12. TWELVE!!!!!

http://www.ageofconsent.com/netherlands.htm
the age of sexual consent is 16 for all, sex between an adult and a young person between the ages of 12 and 16 is permitted by law, as long as the young person consents. And plenty of countries have age of consents of 12 to 14 years old. In fact, Missouri, South Carolina and Iowa's age of consent is 14.

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

How sick is that?

--


What I fail to see is what being born gay has to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong? Even if it is genetic, that doesn't make it right. Alcoholism is thought to be genetic, but we don't go around saying that it's good and normal to be an alcoholic. Pedophiles claim they are born that way too. So what if they are? It is still sick and depraved to molest children.

So whether or not a person is genetically born predisposed to a sexual orientation, whether straight, gay, or pedophiliac, it has no bearing on whether that alone makes it right or wrong. It is the actions of that choice that determine whether it is acceptable in society or not. So the whole "I was born that way" is just a red herring.

[Monkey Boy]

It disgusts me to even try. But I'm here as an absolutist, trying to show the bankruptcy of your relativistic world-view, so here goes.

Using your own words:

"No. I think that unless the people who oppose [pedophilia] can show how someone else's [pedophile] behavior hurts them (the "opposer") directly, then they should shut up and mind their own business."

My statement was confined solely to acts between consenting adults. The child victim of a pedophile is not a consenting adult. Haven't you been listening?

Why are you trying to impose your beliefs on others?

Yes, Vinny, I believe in liberty and the dignity of every human being. Guilty as charged. If fighting for liberty means "imposing" it on those who oppose it, so be it.

Not at all. And I don't single out homosexual sex. Promiscuity in heterosexual sex should also be outlawed, as this is another vector (it's a vector you'd protect, though).

Why stop there, Vinny? Let's outlaw promiscuous kissing and hand-holding, too.

In addition, there's the societal impact to be taken into account. This whole rabbit trail began with you saying, "Why does it matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not? What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of your business either way." By and large, I'd agree with that sentiment. If gays/lesbians were content to keep what they do confined to the bedroom in monogamous relationships (this latter due to the risk of spread of disease), I'd be content. Based on past behaviour, however, I'd say this is pretty nigh impossible, due to A) the norm in the gay community would appear to be promiscuity, and B) the trend among those in the gay community is to begin with their freedom in the bedroom and then extend it into the classrooom, the boardroom, and the courtroom, which doesn't make it very private at all.

I take that to mean that you are opposed to freedom and liberty for homosexuals? What are you afraid of? That one of them might "convert" you?

PS: One other thought. You've agreed that monogamous homosexual behavior does not concern you (which I am happy you have conceded). Doesn't that mean then that society's interest is really in regulating promiscuity and not homosexuality?

[Monkey Boy]

Really? In the Netherlands, the age of consent is 12. TWELVE!!!!!

Well, you learn something new every day. If I were Dutch, I'd be darn sure my daughter understood the consequences before age 12.

What I fail to see is what being born gay has to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong? Even if it is genetic, that doesn't make it right. Alcoholism is thought to be genetic, but we don't go around saying that it's good and normal to be an alcoholic. Pedophiles claim they are born that way too. So what if they are? It is still sick and depraved to molest children.

So whether or not a person is genetically born predisposed to a sexual orientation, whether straight, gay, or pedophiliac, it has no bearing on whether that alone makes it right or wrong. It is the actions of that choice that determine whether it is acceptable in society or not. So the whole "I was born that way" is just a red herring.

I agree with you there, Rev. Where Vinny and I are stuck is in a discussion about which actions society has a legitimate right to regulate.

[brother vinny]

My statement was confined solely to acts between consenting adults. The child victim of a pedophile is not a consenting adult. Haven't you been listening?


Again, you mooted your point by admitting adulthood is arbitrary. Haven't you been paying attention to what you type?

(snip)


I take that to mean that you are opposed to freedom and liberty for homosexuals? What are you afraid of? That one of them might "convert" you?

Au contraire. I am for the liberty of homosexuals to make good on their rhetoric of keeping their activity "in the privacy of their bedrooms." As soon as issues like gay marriage rear their heads, I know that the whole "privacy" issue is a sham.

And, really, don't you think it just a tad bit childish to use the old "someone opposed to homosexuality must be hiding homosexual leanings" tactic? You've stated your opposition to pedophilia. Am I then to assume you patronize the sex tourist industry for Thailand?

[suffer for joy]

Am I then to assume you patronize the sex tourist industry for Thailand?
ZING! :lol:

[brother vinny]

(2nd Reply due to hitherto unseen post script.)


PS: One other thought. You've agreed that monogamous homosexual behavior does not concern you (which I am happy you have conceded).

That's not quite what I conceded. What I conceded is that if it is kept private, it's none of my business. If a male couple live together, I can assume their just good friends and roommates, just as I'd assume the best of a single dad living with his kids. If one (or both) of the male couple comes "out" and advertises their behaviour, then I would want it treated the same as if the single dad came forward to confess he'd been molesting the kids or if one of the kids came forward with accusations of same.

Doesn't that mean then that society's interest is really in regulating promiscuity and not homosexuality?

I don't think it's an either/or issue. As soon as you invoke the "privacy of the bedroom" mantra, you protect both, anyway. Ideally, I believe it's in society's best interest to recognize both as destructive behaviour.

[Minnesota]

What I fail to see is what being born gay has to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong? Even if it is genetic, that doesn't make it right. Alcoholism is thought to be genetic, but we don't go around saying that it's good and normal to be an alcoholic. Pedophiles claim they are born that way too. So what if they are? It is still sick and depraved to molest children.


Unlike alcoholism and pedophilia, homosexuality is not harmful. Alcoholism and pedophilia both have victims, homosexuality does not. So as a state of "nature" rather than "nurture," it is not wrong. How can a benign product of Nature be wrong? It can't.

It is the actions of that choice that determine whether it is acceptable in society or not. So the whole "I was born that way" is just a red herring.

But if "I was born that way" is true, then homosexuality is not a choice. You're assuming to be true by simply denying the opposite. It's a logical fallacy. That some in society have chosen to condemn a benign aspect of nature is an unreasonable act to say the least. AND, to do the same with chosen behavior is almost as unreasonable.

The only reason most people condemn homosexuality is because they have been told it is wrong. NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT. And who is telling them this? Almost invariably it boils down to their religion, which does not cite any specifics as to why it is wrong, but simply says it is. Unfortunately for them, in the USA at least, their religious tenants do not and should not be the laws of the land.

So go ahead and condemn it if that's what your religion tells you to do, but please don't hold the poor homosexual accountable to your beliefs.

[Sparko]

Unlike alcoholism and pedophilia, homosexuality is not harmful. Alcoholism and pedophilia both have victims, homosexuality does not. So as a state of "nature" rather than "nurture," it is not wrong. How can a benign product of Nature be wrong? It can't. I don't even want to get into whether I think homosexuality is right or wrong. Notice I didn't give you my view on that?

I was saying that the fact that a person is born with a disposition toward any behavior is not a factor in whether that behavior is good or bad.

If I am born with a tendency to pick my nose, that doesn't mean that picking my nose is good or bad.

If I am born with a tendency to get angry and kill people, that doesn't mean that killing people is good or bad.

The actions themselves are all that determine whether the action is good or bad, based on the morals of the society.

So, picking my nose is neutral, not because I was born that way, but because society deems it is neutral, but maybe a little disgusting if done in public.

Killing people is bad, but not because or even despite a person was born that way, but because it is considered immoral by society and it harms someone else.


If someone was born Gay, that doesn't mean gay is good or bad. Or normal or deviant. That is determined by society.

Christians also believe certain behavior is deemed wrong and sinful by God. This you may or may not agree with (I think we would agree on the case of pedophilia) - but again, it has nothing to do with being born that way, or being taught that way.

It is a complete red herring.


But if "I was born that way" is true, then homosexuality is not a choice. You're assuming to be true by simply denying the opposite. It's a logical fallacy. That made no sense.



That some in society have chosen to condemn a benign aspect of nature is an unreasonable act to say the least. AND, to do the same with chosen behavior is almost as unreasonable. It is only your opinion that homosexuality does no harm and is benign. I can go dig up medical studies that show that male/male homosexual intercourse is dangerous and harmful. It leads to cancer, and ruptures of the colon and infections. It is a very high risk behavior.

The only reason most people condemn homosexuality is because they have been told it is wrong. NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT. And who is telling them this? Almost invariably it boils down to their religion, which does not cite any specifics as to why it is wrong, but simply says it is. Unfortunately for them, in the USA at least, their religious tenants do not and should not be the laws of the land. So what does that have to do with people claiming it is normal and right just because they were born that way? Pedophiles claim the same thing. And they claim they are not harming anyone either.

So go ahead and condemn it if that's what your religion tells you to do, but please don't hold the poor homosexual accountable to your beliefs. uh I never said what my belief was in my last post, did I? I posted in a neutral manner on purpose.

[Arnold]

What difference does it make whether it is a choice or inherent? Either way it is a manifestly dangerous condition for the practioner and society at large.

Gay men have many diseases that are specific to homo sex. Combined with the immense psychological problems also associated, it leads to an average lifespan of little more than forty years.

It is also particularly dangerous for innocent little boys who are preyed upon by homos. Gays make up only two percent of the population yet pedophilia is about 50 - 50 hetero/homo. This means that homos are 50 times more likely to be pedophiles.

Just for these dangerous reasons alone homosexuality should be made illegal again and practioners should be jailed and placed into forced treament without release until cured.

[Minnesota]

But if "I was born that way" is true, then homosexuality is not a choice. You're assuming to be true by simply denying the opposite. It's a logical fallacy.
That made no sense.
Your original statement (post #51) said, in effect:

A. "being born homosexual has no bearing on its rightness or wrongness (there must be a word for this, but it escapes me). Here you acknowledge the general consensus that it is an innate disposition. YET.

B. You then claim, in effect, "Choosing to be homosexual DOES make it wrong.

Which is it?

Obviously, if people are not choosing to be homosexual then it is not wrong (or right). Yet you contend this is a "red herring" because_________________.? The fact is, the general consensus among those in-the-know is that homosexuality is almost assuredly a natural disposition--not chosen.
It is only your opinion that homosexuality does no harm and is benign.
Not at all.
I can go dig up medical studies that show that male/male homosexual intercourse is dangerous and harmful. It leads to cancer, and ruptures of the colon and infections. It is a very high risk behavior.
Of course you've neglected (on purpose?) to include the qualification that these are not universal effects. That while they do happen, they are not wide spread. "Can" would have been a good word to have inserted into your claim.

But then, so are numerous other human activities potentially detrimental. Look at all the harm recreational heterosexual sex can produce: not the least of which is the unwanted pregnancy with all its attendant risks (think abortion here). And don't forget, anal intercourse is not particular to just homosexuals. And cervical cancer is higher in women who have intercourse.

But, of course, this whole line of argument is premised on the idea that unless an activity is risk free or exceeds some arbitrary thresh hold of risk it should be condemned. How about outlawing an activity that results in:

10% of its participants ending up with a concussion? HOCKEY

15% Of its teen participants ending up with a concussion? SOCCER

17% Of its participants ending up with a concussion? HORSEBACK RIDING

20% Of its teen participants ending up with a concussion? FOOTBALL SOURCE (http://www.concussionsafety.com/riskysports.htm)
If someone was born Gay, that doesn't mean gay is good or bad. Or normal or deviant. That is determined by society.
Yup. So, what you are ya going to base that decision on? Some Biblical admonition? OR That, like all activities, it can result in adverse consequences? OR Ya just don't like homosexuals?
So what does that [the religious basis for condemning homosexuals] have to do with people claiming it is normal and right just because they were born that way?
Only that lacking a secular rational basis for condemnation, this is where the seat of the current bias lies. Just pointing out the facts as I see them.


What difference does.........
Please come back after you've disabused yourself of your ignorance and prejudices. What you've present is simply too overwhelmingly wrong to even begin addressing.

[Sparko]

Your original statement (post #51) said, in effect:

A. "being born homosexual has no bearing on its rightness or wrongness (there must be a word for this, but it escapes me). Here you acknowledge the general consensus that it is an innate disposition. YET.

B. You then claim, in effect, "Choosing to be homosexual DOES make it wrong.

Which is it? Uh, where did I say "b"?

I said: It is the actions of that choice that determine whether it is acceptable in society or not.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I mean that that actions are judged to be moral or not moral soley on the actions themselves and what qualities society puts on those actions. NOT whether a person has control over that behavior or not.

So killing people is generally considered bad form, no matter whether the person can claim to be born that way or not.

Picking noses is just considered disgusting, no matter if a person was born that way or was taught to do so.

Homosexuality is the same. Whether it is right or wrong has NOTHING to do with whether a person was born that way, or learned it from someone, or was turned gay by alien cooties.

[Minnesota]

B. You then claim, in effect, "Choosing to be homosexual DOES make it wrong.
Uh, where did I say "b"?
P.#51
"It is the actions of that choice that determine whether it is acceptable in society or not."

"choice" = choose
"acceptable" = right or wrong

But, my mistake if you actually believe that choosing to be a homosexual is a right or acceptable choice.
Maybe I wasn't clear.I mean that that actions are judged to be moral or not moral soley on the actions themselves and what qualities society puts on those actions. NOT whether a person has control over that behavior or not. [quote]
Okay.
[quote]Homosexuality is the same. Whether it is right or wrong has NOTHING to do with whether a person was born that way, or learned it from someone, or was turned gay by alien cooties.
understood.

So, just how do you consider homosexuality: an orientation that deserves to be accepted on par with heterosexuality, something less, such as, tolerated, tolerated but condemned, or the behavior outlawed?

[Arnold]

Please come back after you've disabused yourself of your ignorance and prejudices. What you've present is simply too overwhelmingly wrong to even begin addressing.
You are either in denial or you just don't know the facts...

Are you one of the ones 50 times more likely to be a pedophile?

[Sparko]

So, just how do you consider homosexuality: an orientation that deserves to be accepted on par with heterosexuality, something less, such as, tolerated, tolerated but condemned, or the behavior outlawed? Actually that is beside the point for this thread. I was just addressing the fallacy of those that claim that Homosexuality is OK if people are born that way.

Whether homosexuality is a choice or not (the OP of this thread) is irrelevant to whether it is an acceptable moral behavior or not.

Do you agree with that?

[Minnesota]

Actually that is beside the point for this thread. I was just addressing the fallacy of those that claim that Homosexuality is OK if people are born that way.
Just curious.

But why is it a fallacy to claim that "homosexuality is OK if people are born that way?

"I, Minnesota, claim that it's ok if people are born homosexuals." You say this statement is fallacious because ___________________ .
Whether homosexuality is a choice or not (the OP of this thread) is irrelevant to whether is an acceptable moral behavior or not.

Do you agree with that?
Put me down for a, "Yes."

[Sparko]

Just curious.

But why is it a fallacy to claim that "homosexuality is OK if people are born that way?

"I, Minnesota, claim that it's ok if people are born homosexuals." You say this statement is fallacious because ___________________ .

Put me down for a, "Yes."
1. Homosexuals have no choice. they are born that way.

...therefore Homosexual behavior is good and normal.

That is fallacious because if you say:

1. Pedophiles have no choice. they are born that way.

...therefore Pedophile behavior is good and normal.

You can clearly see that the second statement is clearly false and yet is completely logically equivilant to the first statement.

To say that homosexuality is OK because they are born that way is a fallacy. The conclusion has no link to the claimed reason.

[Arnold]

1. Homosexuals have no choice. they are born that way.

...therefore Homosexual behavior is good and normal.

That is fallacious because if you say:

1. Pedophiles have no choice. they are born that way.

...therefore Pedophile behavior is good and normal.

You can clearly see that the second statement is clearly false and yet is completely logically equivilant to the first statement.

To say that homosexuality is OK because they are born that way is a fallacy. The conclusion has no link to the claimed reason.Careful...

It is very likely that Minnesota does in fact think that "Pedophile behavior is good and normal."

50 times more likely...
How many children have you done this week Minnesota?

[Minnesota]

1. Homosexuals have no choice. they are born that way.
...therefore Homosexual behavior is good and normal.
That is fallacious because if you say:
1. Pedophiles have no choice. they are born that way.
...therefore Pedophile behavior is good and normal.
If I read you correctly, your position is that, "if the cause of the orientation is nature, then homosexuality automatically assumes a thumbs up," is a fallacious statement. That being born homosexual does not automatically confer any "goodness" on the orientation.

And I agree............... to a point.

I say that unless an aspect of human nature with which we are born can be shown to be detrimental, it does not deserve to be condemned, and at the very least it deserves to be regarded as OK. Is being born left handed bad? It's not normal, yet it is hardly detrimental to the extent that left handedness should not be considered OK.

Moreover, because homosexuality is not a choice, the homosexual must be held blameless for his orientation, AND perhaps not be expected to change this orientation. That perhaps such a thing is not even possible. And THIS is where the issue of Nature takes on importance. If homosexuals are born that way, and homosexuality is not a detriment, then homosexuality DOES deserve to be given an automatic OK by its very nature of being a natural (not chosen) condition.

I say that all conditions automatically deserve to be given an OK if they are Natural, until/unless it can be shown they are detrimental. And, considering that we are suppose to be created in god's image, I would certainly think that Christians would agree.

[Monkey Boy]

Again, you mooted your point by admitting adulthood is arbitrary. Haven't you been paying attention to what you type?

The 55mph speed limit is arbitrary too. That doesn't make it moot.

Au contraire. I am for the liberty of homosexuals to make good on their rhetoric of keeping their activity "in the privacy of their bedrooms." As soon as issues like gay marriage rear their heads, I know that the whole "privacy" issue is a sham.

"Do want you want but don't tell anyone about it" is not liberty Vinny -- it's oppression. And how does it hurt you for a homosexual couple to receive the legal benefits of marriage?

And, really, don't you think it just a tad bit childish to use the old "someone opposed to homosexuality must be hiding homosexual leanings" tactic?

That's not what I said Vinny. I simply asked what it was that you were afraid of. Given your previous comment on gay marriage, I think there is probably something to my question.

That's not quite what I conceded. What I conceded is that if it is kept private, it's none of my business. If a male couple live together, I can assume their just good friends and roommates, just as I'd assume the best of a single dad living with his kids. If one (or both) of the male couple comes "out" and advertises their behaviour, then I would want it treated the same as if the single dad came forward to confess he'd been molesting the kids or if one of the kids came forward with accusations of same.

You're not making any sense here, Vinny. If it is OK for two men to engage privately in homosexual behavior, why is it wrong for them to "come out of the closet"? On the converse, you seem to imply that it's OK for the single dad to molest his kids as long as he keeps it private.

I don't think it's an either/or issue. As soon as you invoke the "privacy of the bedroom" mantra, you protect both, anyway. Ideally, I believe it's in society's best interest to recognize both as destructive behaviour.

You just conceded that private homosexual behavior does no harm to you, yet now you are claiming it is destructive to society. Which is it? Does it harm you or not?

[Tickle Me Goody]

I say that unless an aspect of human nature with which we are born can be shown to be detrimental, it does not deserve to be condemned, and at the very least it deserves to be regarded as OK. Is being born left handed bad? It's not normal, yet it is hardly detrimental to the extent that left handedness should not be considered OK.

Moreover, because homosexuality is not a choice, the homosexual must be held blameless for his orientation, AND perhaps not be expected to change this orientation. That perhaps such a thing is not even possible. And THIS is where the issue of Nature takes on importance. If homosexuals are born that way, and homosexuality is not a detriment, then homosexuality DOES deserve to be given an automatic OK by its very nature of being a natural (not chosen) condition.

I say that all conditions automatically deserve to be given an OK if they are Natural, until/unless it can be shown they are detrimental. And, considering that we are suppose to be created in god's image, I would certainly think that Christians would agree.I think that the difficulty with that position, Minn, is that it shows only one side of a sexual orientation. Strong bi-sexually oriented people are often repulsed by homosexual behavior and find it to be disgusting. That is "natural" for them also. The term "homophobia" is used to characterize that, although there is no real "phobia" involved.

Within my church we have the view that homosexuality is "sin" but no worse than many other sins. Open homosexuals may freely come to our church but may not become members. The same rule holds for any bisexual couple that lives together without being married.

I agree that we (Christians) should not inflict our ethics on others when it does not harm society. Nevertheless, we adopt a standard for ourselves that is dictated by the Bible. I do, however, note that there are those (me included) who think that a homosexual couple adopting a child is a high-risk situation for that child. The only way to establish that is to run the high risk social "experiment" with the child being the one at risk. I have seen "data" that reports both ways so far.

It is a complicated situation. When I was first married, there were two "girls" who lived together on our street of only 6 homes. They were 100% accepted by all the neighbors. The difficulty now, I believe, is that the homosexual movement has become an "in-your-face" activity where they push the notion of an oppressed minority. That is bound to polarize people IMO.


GG

[brother vinny]

The 55mph speed limit is arbitrary too. That doesn't make it moot.


The speed limit is moot on the Autobahn. In your analogy, Thailand would be the Autobahn for gay males, as there's no age of consent for male-male sex there.

Since 1) you've posited the age of consent is arbitrary, 2) you've posited that whatever "consenting adults" (whatever that means, basd on point 1) do in the privacy of the bedroom is protected, and 3) Thailand has no age of consent for male-male sex, would it not then follow that 4) you're okay with what a thirty-year-old man does with a six-year-old boy in the privacy of their Thailand bedroom, so long as both are consenting?


"Do want you want but don't tell anyone about it" is not liberty Vinny -- it's oppression.

Then it's really not about what is done in the privacy of the bedroom, now is it?


That's not what I said Vinny. I simply asked what it was that you were afraid of. Given your previous comment on gay marriage, I think there is probably something to my question.


The question implied such, and it would appear that you're sticking to your guns with this tactic. So, I guess I am to take it that you engage in sex tourism.

You're not making any sense here, Vinny. If it is OK for two men to engage privately in homosexual behavior, why is it wrong for them to "come out of the closet"? On the converse, you seem to imply that it's OK for the single dad to molest his kids as long as he keeps it private.


You're confusing approval with ignorance. I did not say it was okay for two men to have sex privately; I said if I didn't know about it, I would be content in my ignorance. Along the same lines, it's not okay for the single dad to molest his children, but how will anyone know unless either he or the victims come forward?


You just conceded that private homosexual behavior does no harm to you, yet now you are claiming it is destructive to society. Which is it? Does it harm you or not?

I never conceded that private homosexual behaviour does no harm to me as a member of society. Can you show me where I said as much?

[Monkey Boy]

Since 1) you've posited the age of consent is arbitrary, 2) you've posited that whatever "consenting adults" (whatever that means, basd on point 1) do in the privacy of the bedroom is protected, and 3) Thailand has no age of consent for male-male sex, would it not then follow that 4) you're okay with what a thirty-year-old man does with a six-year-old boy in the privacy of their Thailand bedroom, so long as both are consenting?

I think Thailand is doing a poor job of protecting its children from exploitation.

Then it's really not about what is done in the privacy of the bedroom, now is it?

Isn't what goes on the the bedroom the only substantive difference between homo- and heterosexual couples?

The question implied such, and it would appear that you're sticking to your guns with this tactic. So, I guess I am to take it that you engage in sex tourism.

If it makes you feel better to slander me than to tell me what you are afraid of then I guess that will have to do.

You're confusing approval with ignorance. I did not say it was okay for two men to have sex privately; I said if I didn't know about it, I would be content in my ignorance.

If two men are behaving as you say, I fail to see how it makes a lick of difference whether you know about it or not.

I never conceded that private homosexual behaviour does no harm to me as a member of society. Can you show me where I said as much?

You said: "What I conceded is that if it is kept private, it's none of my business." If it harms you, then why would you say it's none of your business?

[brother vinny]

I think Thailand is doing a poor job of protecting its children from exploitation.


What you think is beside the point. Thailand apparently thinks any age is appropriate for male-male sex. In other words, there are no children (from a legal standpoint) in Thailand, only adults.

You may think this is wrong, but you're the one who said adulthood is arbitrary.


Isn't what goes on the the bedroom the only substantive difference between homo- and heterosexual couples?


You tell me. I've no interest in going into detail about what happens between homosexual couples.


If it makes you feel better to slander me than to tell me what you are afraid of then I guess that will have to do.


Your implication that I have anything to fear at all was insulting. It's never an issue of moral outrage, such as it is with your objections to pedophilia. No, it has to be fear.


If two men are behaving as you say, I fail to see how it makes a lick of difference whether you know about it or not.


If I know about it, then it's no longer an issue of what's being kept private, which is the initial premise you posited.


You said: "What I conceded is that if it is kept private, it's none of my business." If it harms you, then why would you say it's none of your business?

It's only harmful to me in a tertiary sense, as homosexual behaviour is destructive to society in general. Such destructiveness is kept to a mininum when the activity is seen as taboo and kept secret. If it was kept private, and not put on display in parades, discussed ad nauseum on the news, defended in the courtroom, imposing itself on quasi-religious organizations like the Boy Scouts, etc., then it would be easier to shield my kids (and myself, for I have no wish to dwell on this type of behaviour) from these unwelcome influences.

Right to privacy is not the goal, AFAICS. Mainstream acceptance is.

[Minnesota]

I think that the difficulty with that position, Minn, is that it shows only one side of a sexual orientation. Strong bi-sexually oriented people are often repulsed by homosexual behavior and find it to be disgusting. That is "natural" for them also. The term "homophobia" is used to characterize that, although there is no real "phobia" involved.
You're right, "homophobia" is used to describe much more than what a literal reading of the word indicates. But I find it an odd claim that "Strong bi-sexually oriented people" are "often repulsed by homosexual behavior and find it to be disgusting." This would indicate that these people are disgusted by the expression in others that they would like to express themselves. It's like being disgusted by people eating steak when you, yourself, would dearly love to eat one. That aside, I'm curious as to where you came by this "fact": " Strong bi-sexually oriented people are often repulsed by homosexual behavior and find it to be disgusting."

But regardless of how any bisexual may feel about homosexual activity, good or bad, how does this pose a "difficulty" for my "position" that "all conditions automatically deserve to be given an OK if they are Natural, until/unless it can be shown they are detrimental"?

It is a complicated situation. When I was first married, there were two "girls" who lived together on our street of only 6 homes. They were 100% accepted by all the neighbors. The difficulty now, I believe, is that the homosexual movement has become an "in-your-face" activity where they push the notion of an oppressed minority. That is bound to polarize people IMO.
Good for their neighbors. Homosexuals and their cause for equal treatment have gained more press and notice because our country has finally recognized that unreasonable discrimination has no place in our society. That if a discrimination cannot be justified it does not deserve to be tolerated. And this is what homosexuals are claiming, but due to the ingrained and often rampant homophobia they've had an uphill battle, and as with so many such struggles, they often garner a lot of press and exposure. It's just the way our system sometimes works: In order to get the grease one will probably have to do a lot of squeaking. That it may polarize people is too bad, but that's a price others may have to pay in order to insure homosexuals receive the equality they feel they are due. And the "homosexual" movement will cease to exist and no longer be "in your face" as soon as it accomplishes its goals. Living in a free society often means putting up with a lot of stuff we may not particularly like, and that's where live and let live comes in, recognizing that we have no right to insist that people live their lives as we personally would like them to. End of lecture :wink:

[Macarthur]

Within my church we have the view that homosexuality is "sin" but no worse than many other sins. Open homosexuals may freely come to our church but may not become members. The same rule holds for any bisexual couple that lives together without being married.


GG
This sounds like the church wants it both ways. They want to "feel good" about allowing homos into the church, but God forbid they try to be members. It's contradictory to say it's just a "sin", but allow those with other "sins" to join; just not that "sin".

[Monkey Boy]

Your implication that I have anything to fear at all was insulting. It's never an issue of moral outrage, such as it is with your objections to pedophilia. No, it has to be fear.

I've provided a justification for my moral outrage (pedophiles exploit children). You've provided none for yours. Thus I assume your real motivation must be something else like fear.

It's only harmful to me in a tertiary sense, as homosexual behaviour is destructive to society in general.

I don't get it. You can't explain how private homosexual behavior harms you, yet you continue to assert that it is somehow destructive to society. You've got a strange definition of "destructive".

Such destructiveness is kept to a mininum when the activity is seen as taboo and kept secret. If it was kept private, and not put on display in parades, discussed ad nauseum on the news, defended in the courtroom, imposing itself on quasi-religious organizations like the Boy Scouts, etc., then it would be easier to shield my kids (and myself, for I have no wish to dwell on this type of behaviour) from these unwelcome influences.

There you have it folks: homosexuality is bad because Vinny is uncomfortable having to think about it.

Right to privacy is not the goal, AFAICS. Mainstream acceptance is.

And what's wrong with accepting other people's right to live their life as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm you?

[Sparko]

If I read you correctly, your position is that, "if the cause of the orientation is nature, then homosexuality automatically assumes a thumbs up," is a fallacious statement. That being born homosexual does not automatically confer any "goodness" on the orientation.

And I agree............... to a point.[/1uote]

Great. That is the only point I was getting at. I was not condemning Homosexuality as bad, nor praising it as good and normal. I was merely stating that being born with a predisposition to it is not relevant to it's morality.

[QUOTE] I say that unless an aspect of human nature with which we are born can be shown to be detrimental, it does not deserve to be condemned, and at the very least it deserves to be regarded as OK. Is being born left handed bad? It's not normal, yet it is hardly detrimental to the extent that left handedness should not be considered OK.
But again, Left handedness is either good, bad or neutral, regardless of how one gets that way. The fact that someone is born left handed, or decided to become left handed by practicing, or even by force if someone chopped off his right hand, none of that speaks to the morality of left-handedness.

Moreover, because homosexuality is not a choice, the homosexual must be held blameless for his orientation, AND perhaps not be expected to change this orientation. That perhaps such a thing is not even possible. And THIS is where the issue of Nature takes on importance. If homosexuals are born that way, and homosexuality is not a detriment, then homosexuality DOES deserve to be given an automatic OK by its very nature of being a natural (not chosen) condition.
But you can eliminate most of that and it remains the same:

"If homosexuals are born that way, and homosexuality is not a detriment, then homosexuality DOES deserve to be given an automatic OK by its very nature of being a natural (not chosen) condition."

If homosexuality is deemed to be a moral behavior, then no matter how a person became homosexual (whether born or taught) it is still a moral behavior.

If homosexuality is deemed to be immoral behavior, then no matter how a person became homosexual (wheter born or taugh) it is still an immoral behavior.

Being born with a tendency to behave a certain way is not excuse to claim that behavior is good. Or bad. It is compeletely irrelevant.

We condemn certain behavior based on the morals of society (including religious reasons and secular reasons) and claiming a birthright to that behavior to make it right is a red herring. It should never be brought into an argument.

The proof of that statement is when a person who condones something like pedophilia uses the argument that if they were born that way then it is good and normal.

We automatically reject that reasoning because we agree that pedophilia is morally wrong and being born that way does not excuse it.

So being born with a tendency to behave in a certain way is no reason that the behavior should be considered moral or immoral or ammoral. It is irrelevant.

[Sparko]

Careful...

It is very likely that Minnesota does in fact think that "Pedophile behavior is good and normal."

50 times more likely...
How many children have you done this week Minnesota?
Arnold that was going way too far. You need to apologize to Minnesota for that.

[Arnold]

Arnold that was going way too far. You need to apologize to Minnesota for that.

We are discussing homosexuality and pedophilia. They are what is "going way too far". My question is based on simple arithmetic and probabilities.

[brother vinny]

I've provided a justification for my moral outrage (pedophiles exploit children). You've provided none for yours. Thus I assume your real motivation must be something else like fear.

No, you've provided the basis of your moral justification, but you haven't justified that basis. On the one hand, you've admitted that adulthood reckoned by age of consent is arbitrary. On the other, you've based your moral outrage on the exploitation of children. But "adulthood" and "childhood" are both arbitrary; they're just labels we use. And here's where your relativism fails us: When presented with the sickening case of the low age of consent in the Netherlands, rather than say, "I'd do everything in my power to protect my child from sexual activity until I deem her old enough to make decisions responsibly," you say, "If I were Dutch, I'd be darn sure my daughter understood the consequences before age 12." What will you do for your Thai son, though? Purchase him pre-natal sex-ed tapes and say "Here you go!" ?

I'll address the rest of your post at a later date, if you'd be so kind. I may need to adjust my views, as you've done me the kindness of demonstating some weaknesses in my current view.

[Minnesota]

If homosexuality is deemed to be a moral behavior, then no matter how a person became homosexual (whether born or taught) it is still a moral behavior.
Absolutely.
If homosexuality is deemed to be immoral behavior, then no matter how a person became homosexual (wheter born or taugh) it is still an immoral behavior.
But, if a behavior is not chosen how can you hold it to be immoral? Morality requires choice. As two articles put it. (emphasis mine)
Morality is ultimately a question of choice. When leftists argue that their “moral” positions regarding public schools, welfare, socialized medicine, or progressive taxation are more sound than ours, and therefore deserve to be supported by government, we should ask a simple question: What is morality? Morality, simply put, is the ethical code we each choose to guide us in our daily lives, in accordance with our respective values. Note that the root of this definition lies in the verb “choose.”
Or this, from another article.
There can be no morality without freedom. Morality is a choice. If you force people to behave morally, then they have not behaved morally. They have simply followed orders. Being a moral person is the act of making moral decisions.
The "forcing" nature of "being born that way" mitigates against homosexuality being immoral. It is simply improper to label a birth condition, "immoral." So this in effect renders such homosexuality moral, or at the least, amoral. The ONLY way homosexuality could be deemed immoral is if it is chosen. And, as it stands, the evidence indicates it is not. It is either a condition set a birth and/or one imposed by conditions outside one's control.
We condemn certain behavior based on the morals of society (including religious reasons and secular reasons) and claiming a birthright to that behavior to make it right is a red herring.
But homosexuality is not a behavior, it is a sexual orientation. A mind set consisting of deep seated feelings and impulses.
The proof of that statement is when a person who condones something like pedophilia uses the argument that if they were born that way then it is good and normal.
I won't speak to what someone may or may not claim, but as with homosexuality, pedophilia as a mind set of deep seated feelings and impulses is not either moral, amoral, or immoral. Only the overt behavior that expresses these impulses can be considered immoral. Only conscious actions are immoral--I won't even entertain that notion of "immoral" thoughts, so no need to go there.

So, given that the only aspect of human nature than can be labeled "immoral" is behavior, the question then is, "Why is behavior X immoral?" To my way of thinking, the only answer is that it results in one or more of the societally proscribe consequences: outcomes society has found to be innately harmful. (I really don't like using some of these nebulous terms, but in talking of the top of my head sometimes a better word just doesn't come to mind.)

Unless homosexual behavior can be shown to be innately harmful it does not deserve to be considered immoral.


{As for Arnold here, I simply dismissed his statement as so much childish Jackassery. Just one more stupid statement. Pay no attention to it. I don't, although I do appreciate your concern. Thanks.}

[Tickle Me Goody]

Thanks for the reply, Minn.
You're right, "homophobia" is used to describe much more than what a literal reading of the word indicates. But I find it an odd claim that "Strong bi-sexually oriented people" are "often repulsed by homosexual behavior and find it to be disgusting." This would indicate that these people are disgusted by the expression in others that they would like to express themselves. It's like being disgusted by people eating steak when you, yourself, would dearly love to eat one. That aside, I'm curious as to where you came by this "fact": " Strong bi-sexually oriented people are often repulsed by homosexual behavior and find it to be disgusting."


I really think that you might make a mediocre psychologist if you think that "disgust" indicates a desire to participate in what is disgusting to an individual. Where did you ever get that notion? I am disgusted but certain foods (like mushrooms and coconut) but it means that I do not want them. What on earth are talking about, Minn.? You usually make more sense than that.

Anyhow, the "fact" that I “claim” is not from a study. It merely is an observation of many people I know --- almost all of whom accord to homosexuals the "right" to be as they wish.
But regardless of how any bisexual may feel about homosexual activity, good or bad, how does this pose a "difficulty" for my "position" that "all conditions automatically deserve to be given an OK if they are Natural, until/unless it can be shown they are detrimental"?
I don't believe that I disagreed with you. There is some doubt, however, as to the degree of open homosexual promiscuity has spread aids around more quickly than might be otherwise.
Good for their neighbors. Homosexuals and their cause for equal treatment have gained more press and notice because our country has finally recognized that unreasonable discrimination has no place in our society. That if a discrimination cannot be justified it does not deserve to be tolerated. And this is what homosexuals are claiming, but due to the ingrained and often rampant homophobia they've had an uphill battle, and as with so many such struggles, they often garner a lot of press and exposure. It's just the way our system sometimes works: In order to get the grease one will probably have to do a lot of squeaking. That it may polarize people is too bad, but that's a price others may have to pay in order to insure homosexuals receive the equality they feel they are due. And the "homosexual" movement will cease to exist and no longer be "in your face" as soon as it accomplishes its goals. Living in a free society often means putting up with a lot of stuff we may not particularly like, and that's where live and let live comes in, recognizing that we have no right to insist that people live their lives as we personally would like them to. End of lecture
That is rather naive for a sophisticated person like you, Minn.
I was one of those neighbors and I see no problems with accepting people with lifestyles other than my own.

I laugh that you "lecture" me. I have lived for many years and seen many a flap like this get started. The "in your face" campaign, for any reason, necessarily brings the opposite of what the naïve initial protesters want. You can wager that Bush got enough votes to win the election -- because of that reaction .

That too is the nature of our society. The average person reacts against the "flap of the year" . Then it grows into a national movement funded by the "true believers" in that cause. The leaders and the lawyers make big bucks and the next big flap takes place. Meanwhile the fish put big bucks into the latest flappers pocketbooks.

And the free world shall ever be thus. IMHO

God bless America!

GG

[Arnold]

{As for Arnold here, I simply dismissed his statement as so much childish Jackassery. Just one more stupid statement. Pay no attention to it. I don't, although I do appreciate your concern. Thanks.}I certainly expect you to dismiss my assertions, because if you ever entertained them for one moment you would have to admit that the numbers don't lie. Homophobia is the appropriate response - we should all be afraid for our children around homos.

[Sparko]

Absolutely.

But, if a behavior is not chosen how can you hold it to be immoral? Morality requires choice. As two articles put it. (emphasis mine)

The "forcing" nature of "being born that way" mitigates against homosexuality being immoral. It is simply improper to label a birth condition, "immoral." So this in effect renders such homosexuality moral, or at the least, amoral. The ONLY way homosexuality could be deemed immoral is if it is chosen. And, as it stands, the evidence indicates it is not. It is either a condition set a birth and/or one imposed by conditions outside one's control. So your position is that homosexuals are robots and have no free will? That they should be excused because they have no self control?

Then pedophiles and homocidal schizophrenics should be excused for their actions and their actions should be deemed as not immoral because they can't help acting the way they do.



But homosexuality is not a behavior, it is a sexual orientation. A mind set consisting of deep seated feelings and impulses.
Wrong. Homosexuality results in behavior. It is that behavior that we judge to be moral or not. For examples, Christians only condemn the act of homosexuality, not the persons. For example Christians that have homosexual tendencies are called to remain celebate and not engage in homosexual activity. The activity is what counts.


I won't speak to what someone may or may not claim, but as with homosexuality, pedophilia as a mind set of deep seated feelings and impulses is not either moral, amoral, or immoral. Only the overt behavior that expresses these impulses can be considered immoral. Only conscious actions are immoral--I won't even entertain that notion of "immoral" thoughts, so no need to go there. Exactly what I am saying. The behavior that is expressed is what is considered moral or immoral, not being born that way.



Unless homosexual behavior can be shown to be innately harmful it does not deserve to be considered immoral. Sounds like we agree but you are hesitant to state so plainly becuase you think I have some hidden agenda and will drop that when you agree.

I don't. I just get tired of peopel trying to excuse behavior by saying it is OK because they were born that way and can't help it.

Even if they were born that way, it doesn't mean they are robots. Genetics does not control our lives that much. It is only a tendency. And second, it has no bearing on the morality of thier behavior. That's my whole point.

I will leave the morality of homosexuality for another thread.


{As for Arnold here, I simply dismissed his statement as so much childish Jackassery. Just one more stupid statement. Pay no attention to it. I don't, although I do appreciate your concern. Thanks.} No problem. I just dislike it when people resort to such venom when they don't even know the other person.

[Arnold]

No problem. I just dislike it when people resort to such venom when they don't even know the other person.Very odd. You are quite willing to discuss hypothetical scenarios with someone who defends those who practice behaviors that you agree are a threat to society. But you dislike it when real life intrudes into your theoretical, hypothetical discussion.

[Sparko]

No Arnold. I dislike that you stooped so low as to imply that Minnesota was a pedophile by asking him how many children he has 'done' - that was crude, mean spirited and unchristian of you. You owe him an apology.

[Arnold]

No Arnold. I dislike that you stooped so low as to imply that Minnesota was a pedophile by asking him how many children he has 'done' - that was crude, mean spirited and unchristian of you. You owe him an apology.
For someone who directly defends homosexuality and indirectly defends pedophilia no such apology is required.

Minnesota defends the indefensible and I am just attempting to expose motive.

Again, pedophilia happens at a 50 - 50 ratio of hetero and homo attacks, and homos are only 2 percent of the population. Based on plain old arithmetic gays are 50 times more likely to be pedophiles than heteros. So it is very likely that any gay person you meet is a pedophile as well.


Why doesn't Minnesota just answer the question?

[Minnesota]

I really think that you might make a mediocre psychologist if you think that "disgust" indicates a desire to participate in what is disgusting to an individual. Where did you ever get that notion? I am disgusted but certain foods (like mushrooms and coconut) but it means that I do not want them. What on earth are talking about, Minn.? You usually make more sense than that.
I realize my response was less than spot-on, but I found your assertion so odd that I wasn't quite sure how to correct it. When you say "strong bi-sexual" it indicates to me that such a person has strong positive feels toward both sexes. And that if one has strong positive feelings toward something (they like the object, and enjoy liking it) it's then contradictory to also be repulsed or disgusted by the very thing they like. So, "Strong bi-sexually oriented people are often repulsed by homosexual behavior and find it to be disgusting." comes off as a contradiction.
I was one of those neighbors and I see no problems with accepting people with lifestyles other than my own.
Good for you.
I laugh that you "lecture" me.
When I began my response I didn't know exactly where it was going to lead, and as I was finishing up I realized it sounded a bit like a lecture, which was not my intent. So, with tongue in cheek, I simply labeled it as such.

Obviously, the "in your face" perception all depends on where one sits

[Sparko]

For someone who directly defends homosexuality and indirectly defends pedophilia no such apology is required.

Minnesota defends the indefensible and I am just attempting to expose motive.

Again, pedophilia happens at a 50 - 50 ratio of hetero and homo attacks, and homos are only 2 percent of the population. Based on plain old arithmetic gays are 50 times more likely to be pedophiles than heteros. So it is very likely that any gay person you meet is a pedophile as well.


Why doesn't Minnesota just answer the question?
So what makes you think Minnesota is even gay? Just because he defends it?

And I am not just telling you to cut the vitriol as a felllow christian, but as a moderator of this web site. Stop it, and please apologize.

[Arnold]

So what makes you think Minnesota is even gay? Just because he defends it?


Well he admitted it earlier. And I am just using the same presumptive argumentation he used earlier as well:

"But I find it an odd claim that "Strong bi-sexually oriented people" are "often repulsed by homosexual behavior and find it to be disgusting." This would indicate that these people are disgusted by the expression in others that they would like to express themselves. It's like being disgusted by people eating steak when you, yourself, would dearly love to eat one." - Minnesota

JohnSparks, where is your indignation for Minnisota?

[Minnesota]

So your position is that homosexuals are robots and have no free will?
As much robots as heterosexuals are to their orientation.
That they should be excused because they have no self control?
No self control over what? Oh you mean because so many homosexuals like having sex more than do most heterosexuals this is obviously a "self control" issue. That people who have well developed self control only have sex on Saturday nights with the lights out, under the covers, and only take up the missionary position. And that any such deviation from heterosexual norms automatically becomes our responsibility to excuse or not excuse. Please! If you feel some need to pass judgment on the consensual sexual behavior of others go right ahead, excuse or not excuse to your heart's content. But please don't try to regulate or control the behavior of others just because it differs in degree to your own.
Then pedophiles and homocidal schizophrenics should be excused for their actions and their actions should be deemed as not immoral because they can't help acting the way they do.
*Sigh* Please note in my last post my differentiation between a predisposition and acting on that predisposition.

But homosexuality is not a behavior, it is a sexual orientation. A mind set consisting of deep seated feelings and impulses.
Wrong. Homosexuality results in behavior.
??????????????? Obviously you are not aware of what you've said here.
It is that behavior that we judge to be moral or not.
Okay. So if homosexual behavior is morally wrong, why?
Sounds like we agree but you are hesitant to state so plainly because you think I have some hidden agenda and will drop that when you agree.
I hesitate because I keep getting the impression that YOU feel homosexual behavior is wrong.

[Monkey Boy]

No, you've provided the basis of your moral justification, but you haven't justified that basis. On the one hand, you've admitted that adulthood reckoned by age of consent is arbitrary. On the other, you've based your moral outrage on the exploitation of children. But "adulthood" and "childhood" are both arbitrary; they're just labels we use.

Let's get one thing straight: to set a particular age as the magic transition between childhood and adulthood IS arbitrary. However, the CONCEPTS of adulthood and childhood are not. Surely you know the difference between and adult and a child? That proves that they are more than just labels.

And here's where your relativism fails us:

Don't blame me for the screwed up laws in other countries. I had nothing to do with it.

When presented with the sickening case of the low age of consent in the Netherlands, rather than say, "I'd do everything in my power to protect my child from sexual activity until I deem her old enough to make decisions responsibly," you say, "If I were Dutch, I'd be darn sure my daughter understood the consequences before age 12." What will you do for your Thai son, though? Purchase him pre-natal sex-ed tapes and say "Here you go!" ?

Where did I say or insinuate that I wouldn't protect my children from exploitation? What kind of parent do you think I am?

I'll address the rest of your post at a later date, if you'd be so kind. I may need to adjust my views, as you've done me the kindness of demonstating some weaknesses in my current view.

I'll send you some pearls while you think it over...

[Sparko]

Well he admitted it earlier. And I am just using the same presumptive argumentation he used earlier as well:

"But I find it an odd claim that "Strong bi-sexually oriented people" are "often repulsed by homosexual behavior and find it to be disgusting." This would indicate that these people are disgusted by the expression in others that they would like to express themselves. It's like being disgusted by people eating steak when you, yourself, would dearly love to eat one." - Minnesota

JohnSparks, where is your indignation for Minnisota?
Uh, I don't even understand that quote much less feel indignated by it.

Seems like he is saying that Bi-sexuals dislike homosexuals and find their behavior repulsive. and that he thinks it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

How is that supposed to make me feel indignation for Minnesota? If that is what he is saying, I agree.

[Sparko]

As much robots as heterosexuals are to their orientation.

No self control over what? Oh you mean because so many homosexuals like having sex more than do most heterosexuals this is obviously a "self control" issue. That people who have well developed self control only have sex on Saturday nights with the lights out, under the covers, and only take up the missionary position. And that any such deviation from heterosexual norms automatically becomes our responsibility to excuse or not excuse. Please! If you feel some need to pass judgment on the consensual sexual behavior of others go right ahead, excuse or not excuse to your heart's content. But please don't try to regulate or control the behavior of others just because it differs in degree to your own.
wow, talk about reading too much into something. Again. I am purposefully NOT arguing whether I think homosexual behavior is right or wrong. I never implied anything you stated above. The chip on your shoulder is causing you to keep trying to put words in my mouth and create a straw man to burn.

I meant that if you are saying that being born gay means they have no control over their actions, then you must think they have no free will. If you do think they have free will , then stop trying to claim that being born that way means they must act on that predisposition. We all have free will. I have heterosexual tendencies and orientation, but since I am not married, I don't act on those tendencies and remain celebate. I am not controlled by my genes. My behavior is controlled by my mind.



Okay. So if homosexual behavior is morally wrong, why?
Never said it was. Never said it was OK either.

I hesitate because I keep getting the impression that YOU feel homosexual behavior is wrong.
What does what I think about whether homosexual behavior is right or wrong have to do with a logical argument about whether it is right or wrong based on genetics? It doesn't

Genetics has nothing to do with whether a behavior is moral or immoral.

[Minnesota]

wow, talk about reading too much into something. Again. I am purposefully NOT arguing whether I think homosexual behavior is right or wrong. I never implied anything you stated above.
Look Js, it's one thing to sit here and put down your thoughts knowing exactly what you mean, and it's quite another for someone who hardly knows you to interpret those thoughts in the exact same way. And this is why when you start a isolated paragraph with,
Then pedophiles and homocidal schizophrenics should be excused for their actions and their actions should be deemed as not immoral because they can't help acting the way they do. it comes off as a declarative statement of your position. Give me some help here. I'm far from a mind reader.
I meant that if you are saying that being born gay means they have no control over their actions, then you must think they have no free will.
Not what I'm saying, not what I'm thinking.
Never said it was. Never said it was OK either.
Rephrase: Is there any reason to judge homosexual behavior moral or immoral? If yes, why? If not, why?
What does what I think about whether homosexual behavior is right or wrong have to do with a logical argument about whether it is right or wrong based on genetics?
Who's talking about genetics? As far as I know homosexual orientation has not been shown to reside in our genes.

[Sparko]

I'm done. see ya.

[Arnold]

Uh, I don't even understand that quote much less feel indignated by it.

Seems like he is saying that Bi-sexuals dislike homosexuals and find their behavior repulsive. and that he thinks it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

How is that supposed to make me feel indignation for Minnesota? If that is what he is saying, I agree.Are you really that stupid? He's calling you a homo-wannabe if you are "repulsed by homosexual behavior". This is classic homo argumentation. They can't make their case logically so they call their opponents latent homos with secret ambitions to be seduced or other such nonsense.

You have been sucked into their dumb argument of whether homosexualitiy is learned, chosen, inherent or whatever. It doesn't matter why. Only the results matter. And the results are that homosexuality is extremely dangerous to the practioner's health, significantly reducing life span, and leads to pedophelia at 50 times the rate of heteros.

[Tickle Me Goody]

I realize my response was less than spot-on, but I found your assertion so odd that I wasn't quite sure how to correct it. When you say "strong bi-sexual" it indicates to me that such a person has strong positive feels toward both sexes. And that if one has strong positive feelings toward something (they like the object, and enjoy liking it) it's then contradictory to also be repulsed or disgusted by the very thing they like. So, "Strong bi-sexually oriented people are often repulsed by homosexual behavior and find it to be disgusting." comes off as a contradiction.You are right. I chose the wrong word.


Obviously, the "in your face" perception all depends on where one sitsI doubt that. In-your-face attitudes are quite independent of the subject matter from what I observe. I simply note that people who would ordinarily be neutral get annoyed and oppose what is being proposed. It's just human nature.

Gotta go for a while. Behave yourself.

GG

[Sparko]

Are you really that stupid? He's calling you a homo-wannabe if you are "repulsed by homosexual behavior".
No he was talking about bi-sexuals who are repulsed by homosexual behavior. I consider bi-sexuals to be homosexual. So if they are repulsed by other homosexuals, then indeed they should be repulsed by their own behavior.

You need to go back and re-read the quote you threw at me. Perhaps you didn't pay attention. I see no mention of heterosexuals in his words.




You have been sucked into their dumb argument of whether homosexualitiy is learned, chosen, inherent or whatever. It doesn't matter why. Only the results matter. And the results are that homosexuality is extremely dangerous to the practioner's health, significantly reducing life span, and leads to pedophelia at 50 times the rate of heteros.
Actually if you bothered reading MY posts you would see that I was arguing against the claim that homosexual behavior can be determined to be right or wrong based on whether a person is born that way, or taught, or chosen. The correctness of homosexual behavior must be judged by its own merits or deficits. I purposely did not bring my viewpoint of the matter into the discussion because I did not want to drag the discussion down that path, but just wanted to point out the fact that being born a certain way is no reason to claim it is OK to behave that way. It has nothing to do with the behavior and wether it is moral or not.

I said it several times in as many ways that I could, but Minnesota keeps trying to change the topic to whether Gay is OK or not. And you just want to come in and call names. Does not anyone read the thread topics anymore?

So I am done with the thread. You and Minnesota can duke it out if you like.

[theseed]

Alcholism is biological/genetic too, but there is a choice there.

[Alien]

What a remarkable thread ... remarkable for its misunderstandings, that is. It seems that just about everyone has been arguing "past" everyone else, though occasionally they waved as they went by.

JS came in solely to make the point that having an inborn tendency to take certain actions does not excuse going ahead and actually taking those actions if the actions are themselves wrong, something he established in his first post, at least to me. Minn actually agrees with that, I think, but never got around saying so. Both certainly agree that a homosexual orientation is not wrong in and of itself, but took forever to actually state that agreement, though Minn veered off again immediately, wishing to discuss whether homosexual actions are wrong, which JS didn't.

Goody misused a word, typing "bi-sexual" when he meant "heterosexual". This led to all kinds of confusion by all. Somehow Minn's attempt to understand what he thought Goody was saying led Arnold to conclude that he (Minn) was a pedophile, surely the record for a logical "long jump". Well done Arnold.

And well done all round for a very entertaining thread. :cheers:

[Minnesota]

Just to make it clear:
I. . . just wanted to point out the fact that being born a certain way is no reason to claim it is OK to behave that way.
The point was made, and acknowledged as having been made.
It [being born a certain way] has nothing to do with the behavior
Wrong. "It" [being born a certain way] often DOES have something to do with behavior. Predispositions such a temperament and emotional character are very much set at birth, and can have a very significant impact on behavior.
and wether it is moral or not.
True.
I said it several times in as many ways that I could,
Which was acknowledged in post #68 and confirmed by Sparks in post #77.

If I read you correctly, your position is that . . . being born homosexual does not automatically confer any "goodness" on the orientation.

And I agree............... to a point.
Great. That is the only point I was getting at.

So his point was made and I acknowledged it. End of his concern? No. Sparks then began belaboring the point.
If homosexuality is deemed to be a moral behavior, then no matter how a person became homosexual (whether born or taught) it is still a moral behavior.

If homosexuality is deemed to be immoral behavior, then no matter how a person became homosexual (wheter born or taugh) it is still an immoral behavior.
To which I responded, and which eventually lead to my scaring him off because, I believe, he thought my question was directed at his personal views, which it was not

I believe it began with his statement, "It is that behavior that we judge to be moral or not," which I agree with. But to understand why he thought anyone would judge homosexuality to be immoral, I asked him, "if homosexual behavior is morally wrong, why?" By what criteria can people honestly judge homosexuality to be immoral?

Sparks answered by saying that, He "Never said it was. Never said it was OK either." But this was not what I was asking him: how he personally viewed homosexuality. So I asked him in another way: "Rephrase: Is there any reason to judge homosexual behavior moral or immoral? If yes, why? If not, why?" OR, what is it about homosexual behavior that makes it a subject to judgment -- judgment as to its morality? If there is reason to hold it up to judgment, why? If there is no reason to hold it up to judgment, why?

My point was to get him to reflect on the nature of moral judgments and where I believe their rational should lie, by answering the question: is the behavior detrimental or not. If a behavior is not detrimental then the question of being moral or immoral is not a proper one. If a behavior is detrimental, then it is fair to question its morality.

Obviously I should have been more straight forward rather than Socratic. My mistake.


That's all, and thank you for your attention.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Goody misused a word, typing "bi-sexual" when he meant "heterosexual". This led to all kinds of confusion by all. Heck, when you are old as I am you are lucky to rememer the "sexual" part of anything -- and even that is a rather distant memory. :wink:

It was interesting and maybe should be revisited someday.:pot:

GG

gone for a while

:outtie:

[Zeluvia]

The rights of the individual is the basis for a free society.

[Solly]

Last Updated: Monday, 31 January, 2005, 00:00 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4215427.stm
Multiple genes - and not just the sex chromosomes - are important in sexual orientation, say US scientists.

A University of Illinois team, which has screened the entire human genome, say there is no one 'gay' gene.

Writing in the journal Human Genetics, they said environmental factors are also likely to be involved.

The findings add to the debate over whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice. Campaigners say equality is the more important issue.

Much of the past genetic research into male homosexuality had focused solely on the X chromosome, passed down to boys by their mother, according to lead researcher Dr Brian Mustanski.

His team looked at all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes of 456 individuals from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.

They found several identical stretches of DNA that were shared among gay siblings on chromosomes other than the female X.

About 60% of these brothers shared identical DNA on three chromosomes - chromosome 7, 8 and 10.

If it were down to chance, only 50% of these stretches would be shared, said the authors.

The region found on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only when it was inherited from the mother.

Dr Mustanski said the next step would be to see if the findings could be confirmed by further studies, and to identify the particular genes within the newly discovered sequences that are linked to sexual orientation.

"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," he said, but added that other factors were also important.

"Sexual orientation is a complex trait. There is no one 'gay' gene.

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

Alan Wardle from the gay rights charity Stonewall said: "It's an interesting study that contributes further to the debate.

"Regardless of whether sexual orientation is determined by nature or nurture or both, the most important thing is that lesbian and gay men are treated equally and are allowed to live their life without discrimination."

[Sparko]

Again, Solly, so what? If you were to find that same article and it was speaking about pedophilia, no one would be saying that it excused pedophiles and made their behavior less reprehensable. Whether the cause of sexual orientation is genetic or environmental, it speaks nothing about its morality.

[Solly]

I didn't say I was agreeing with it, any more than I did in my first post to this thread. It came up, so I posted it.
I did in fact originally point out that environmental factors can play a great part, and that fact therefore removes the debate from the realm of purely genetic disposition into the volitional/moral realm.
However, most moral debates centre on adult consensual behaviour, which pædophilia does not involve, to cite your example. Equally, adultery does involve, at first sight, adult consensual behaviour, but also has the concomitants of marriage partners who are deemed to be part of the overall circumstances, and therefore it is immoral on the basis of trust and contract.
Homosexuality at first flush does not fall into this area either, as it stands.
In fact, homosexuality is not a 'moral' behaviour at all, within the Christian schema, but a matter of sin, which is not quite the same. Pride is not a crime, but it is a sin. Gluttony is not a crime, but it is a sin. Hate is not a crime, but it is a sin. The problem is that the different sides in the debate are not operating on the same ground rules. Even Rocco Buttigglione, the italian minister denied his seat on the European Commision stated that his belief is that homosexuality is a sin, not a crime. Therefore our approach to the matter must be a bit more nuanced than 'God hates fags'.
Adulterers have to be brought to see how they are wrong, and the pain they have caused for selfish ends.
Pædophilics have to be brought to see that children are not, and cannot be, consensual sexual partners.
Homosexuals? What contracts have they broken? What consensual barriers have they crossed? You have to be specific about what your are charging them with, before you can get them to 'repent'. Certainly, showing how environmental factors have influenced them can be a psychological approach in some cases; perhaps there is a measure of rebelion in those who have volitionally chosen that path, just as with hippies of long ago, bohemians, drug use, hell's angels, rock and roll, etc. But it still seems to leave you with a core group who apparently have known nothing but homosexual attraction to the same sex, and we need clear reasons why they should not act on that if they are not Evangelical Christians.
And lastly, the measure of shock and awe that is disseminated from our side seems to show up our own uncertainties and discomfort in the area of dealing with people who are different from us in only one aspect of their life.

[Zeluvia]

Nice differentation there Solly, I like that.

Please lets not try to make all sins crimes = )

I think that is to me the scariest thing about the far right. Even though homosexuality may be considered a sin, or aberration, they are still humans, with a need for love, care, and compassion and equal treatment under the law.

[Minnesota]

Last Updated: Monday, 31 January, 2005, 00:00 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4215427.stm
Multiple genes - and not just the sex chromosomes - are important in sexual orientation, say US scientists.

Very interesting. Thanks for digging it up and posting. It will be interesting to see if their studies are confirmed or not, and whether there is an identifiable genetic component to sexual orientation.

Whether the cause of sexual orientation is genetic or environmental, it speaks nothing about its morality.

Don't be taken in by this Solly. If sexual orientation is genetic it's defacto amoral. That is the base starting point to any consideration about homosexual behavior. From there the question may be asked, "Is the behavior bad, ie. detrimental?" If it is not, then the question of its designation as either moral or immoral is rather moot as an item of any concern. We are seldom bothered by amoral or moral actions. We say, "Okay, carry on." "Do your thing." "Live and let live." But, if the behavior is bad, detrimental, then we might want to consider labeling it immoral.

So how do we decide such a thing? I say that it must break a society's code of conduct. Unfortunately, such codes may not be rooted in very charitable reason. As an example, at one time it was perfectly moral to own other people in the United States. Slavery was not considered to be bad, detrimental. This points up the fact that we should always endeavor to construct our codes to do the least harm and the most good for all humanity. So, in putting together a code of behavior that addresses sexual behavior it is relevant to ask if behavior X is harmful to anyone. If it is not, it does not deserve to be codified as immoral. If it is, and is of considerable consequence (merely tapping on someones chest in anger to make a point would hardly qualify, even if the tapping did sting a bit. But to slug someone in the jaw sending him to his knees with three loose teeth would be of consequence) then we have a right to label it immoral if we choose.

So, how does this relate to homosexual behavior? Unless the behavior actually harms someone or society as a whole (and we are not considering consequences that could be incidental to the behavior, such as STDs) it does not deserve to be labeled immoral. Of course there may be religious or cultural codes that derive their force by edict of authority or through eons of long establishment, but these codes almost invariably ignore the crucial consideration of actual harm. If a religious code declared eating peas with a knife was immoral because it would prevent the pea eater from entering into heaven, it would be incumbent upon that religion to prove that such an act actually would result in such exclusion. Failing that, this part of the religious code cannot be held to be binding on anyone outside that religion.

Therefore, while some Christians may label homosexual behavior as immoral because the Bible tells them so, unless they can prove the behavior is detrimental to those outside its beliefs it has no right in trying to enforce that morality on others. And therefore the behavior has every right to retain its standing in a pluralistic society as either amoral or moral. Christians can do what they like (within reason) to their brethren, and call the what they wish (within reason), but outside their religion they must play by other rules. And hopefully those rules will be grounded in considered reason.

[Solly]

To broaden the subject. There is a great debate about smoking and drinking. IN the UK it is estimated that as much as 80% of the people who are hospitalised are there as a result of smoking and drinking, be it via street fights, domestic abuse, or the various failures of bodily functions that accompany the use of these substances. Surely that is immoral and should be stopped? No one wants to stop it. We hear reports of what homosexuals will suffer as a result of their behaviour, but the same applies, since we have already set the ground rules, although we then make the exception that proves the rule by banning drug use.
I firmly believe that homosexuality is wrong, on revealed Biblical principles; it is no more God's intended best for them than divorce is for heterosexuals; their creation that way is a matter of genetic defect it would appear. But divorce happens, and regularly in churches these day, even amongst prominent leaders in the church. There was a time when divorcees could not remarry in the church; now they can, several times over if need be. Until the church plays a straighter bat, then it can't expect people to take much notice, and I am sure Minn can readily lay his hands on the stats about Christians visiting porn sites on the web as well.
Equally, I think the homosexual lobby is going too far for what they claim is a normal behaviour for them. Seeking civil rights for long term relationships is one thing, but demanding that they have a culture that should be recognised, esp when that culture is in most peoples eyes merely sexual deviancy and other Rocky horror Picture Show type activity is just pushing for the sake of pushing. Either they want to be accepted as a part of society just like the rest of us, and their sexuality does not matter, or they are indeed claiming to be different; but you can't have it both ways.

[Minnesota]

I firmly believe that homosexuality is wrong, on revealed Biblical principles; . . . their creation that way is a matter of genetic defect it would appear.
And if so, doesn't it seem quite uncharitable of god to denounce something he instilled in some of his creatures? God gives creatures X, Y, and Z (humans aren't the only ones who express homosexual behavior) a particular disposition toward H and then calls this disposition wrong. Who committed the wrong here, those who wound up with it through no choice of their own, or the person who did it to them?
it is no more God's intended best for them than divorce is for heterosexuals
Which goes to the heart of matter. If it isn't in a person's best interest to have a homosexual orientation, then why does god allow it to manifest itself as genetic disposition? Divorce, on the other hand, is clearly a matter of choice, which in the opinion of many is a better choice than to remain in a destructive marriage. Divorce Can be bad, but it can also be good. And unless homosexuality can be show to be inherently detrimental it does not meet objective criteria as being "wrong."
Equally, I think the homosexual lobby is going too far for what they claim is a normal behaviour for them.
As far as "normal" in the sense of percentage of the population, it certainly is not. But as a natural (unchosen) orientation it is as normal as is blond hair (only 9% of the world's population is born blond). And it is certainly normal behavior for them.
demanding that they have a culture that should be recognised, esp when that culture is in most peoples eyes merely sexual deviancy and other Rocky horror Picture Show type activity is just pushing for the sake of pushing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "recognized," but I don't believe any homosexual is necessarily looking for approval for their "culture," just an acceptance as another alternative life style, not unlike celibacy, military service, Hasidism, or as recluse living in the hills of Idaho.
Either they want to be accepted as a part of society just like the rest of us, and their sexuality does not matter, or they are indeed claiming to be different; but you can't have it both ways.
And why not? Because you don't like what they do? So what if they're different? If their behavior doesn't do actual harm to you or society just where does the problem lie. Such an attitude smacks of unjustified intolerance.

[Solly]

And if so, doesn't it seem quite uncharitable of god to denounce something he instilled in some of his creatures? God gives creatures X, Y, and Z (humans aren't the only ones who express homosexual behavior) a particular disposition toward H and then calls this disposition wrong. Who committed the wrong here, those who wound up with it through no choice of their own, or the person who did it to them?

That would be to assume that the Biblical/Christian position is that God specifically and causally created someone with traits X Y Z, and then blames them for it. This is a common criticism of Christianity in general, re the creation and subsequent fall of Adam. I remember hearing Gene Roddenberry wax lyrical - as he supposed - about a God who creates faulty humans and then destroys them. Defects of what ever kind are the result of the contingency of the universe God has created, as disturbed by humanity's rebellion against God. I don't expect you to believe that, of course. The genetic defect that apparently causes homosexuality is on a par with other genetic disorders, although compounded by environmental factors, much as say a predisposition to depression can be, or schizophrenia.

Which goes to the heart of matter. If it isn't in a person's best interest to have a homosexual orientation, then why does god allow it to manifest itself as genetic disposition? Divorce, on the other hand, is clearly a matter of choice, which in the opinion of many is a better choice than to remain in a destructive marriage. Divorce Can be bad, but it can also be good. And unless homosexuality can be show to be inherently detrimental it does not meet objective criteria as being "wrong."

You are using a utilitarian analysis, and on that basis, of course, homosexuality is not wrong - although one could then go on to argue the medical facts as with drug use, and conclude it is wrong on a utilitarian basis; if that was done, then where is the strength of the genetic case?
Christian ethics are, in part, teleological: they aim at something, a goal, which for Christians is to be 'like Christ' [sorry we don't often manifest that fact]. I know the teleological analysis is out of favour these days, with talk about functions etc, but there it is, we still use it. God created humanity, male and female he created them, blessed them and told them to multiply, etc. homosexuality falls short of the teleological purpose of human life in God's plans. It may be a reasonable stopping short, and very valuable for the people involved, and beneficial to them - and I don't mean to be patronising. But the Christian vision is that each human being should seek the glory of God, and glorify them with body and soul, and that homosexuality is a falling short of that [along with a lot of other things]. That is why it is a sin, not a crime; that is why I would not object to civil unions, but would object to church blessings. One of my local politicians is gay - indeed I think several are - and I have voted for him, but I would not support an actively gay minister.

As far as "normal" in the sense of percentage of the population, it certainly is not. But as a natural (unchosen) orientation it is as normal as is blond hair (only 9% of the world's population is born blond). And it is certainly normal behavior for them.

But we can then argue the normality of pædophilia, necrophilia, etc, and you would look increasingly silly in trying to distance yourself from what people recognise as not just abnormal, but perverse. Use does not authorise legitimacy [I am sure there is some catchy latin phrase for that], and all you are left with is the 'do no harm' clause.

I'm not sure what you mean by "recognized," but I don't believe any homosexual is necessarily looking for approval for their "culture," just an acceptance as another alternative life style, not unlike celibacy, military service, Hasidism, or as recluse living in the hills of Idaho.

We have concerted campaigns to get the LGBT agenda across, from an LGBT awareness month in the UK, where they are going into schools promoting their 'culture' to gay parades, etc. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Either gay orientation is 'normal' just as 'straight' is, and let's sort out the legal issues and say no more about it, or 'gay' is more than just a gender orientation, but a programme, a manifesto, a culture. I don't have to put up with hasidim siezing the public forum in dramatic ways, presenting themselves in parades in wierd outfits [well, ok...:lol:] denoting sexual deviancy to most people's minds, and then be expected to recognise the innate 'normality' of what they practice and seek.

And why not? Because you don't like what they do? So what if they're different? If their behavior doesn't do actual harm to you or society just where does the problem lie. Such an attitude smacks of unjustified intolerance.

Well, I'll leave it for others to determine whether I am being intolerant here. i have not criminalised the behaviour, I have accepted some of the claims of the LGBT community re civil rights. My concern with homosexuality resides almost exclusively within the confines of the church, plus aspects of their promotional behaviour re my children in school, etc. For me it is a theological issue. I recognise the fact that I also have the 'yecch' factor when i consider the matter, but then i have that when I think of abattoirs, so it is inadmissable evidence.

[Minnesota]

That would be to assume that the Biblical/Christian position is that God specifically and causally created someone with traits X Y Z, and then blames them for it.
What is the alternative? If god had no hand in the "genetic" cause of homosexuality then how did it arise? Are you saying that were it not for the Fall, homosexuality would never have arisen? That because A&E ate the apple 3-10 % of the people on earth would be "selected" to bear the "curse" of homosexuality? What a very peculiar sin to create. One that has nothing to do with choice, but genetic coding.
The genetic defect that apparently causes homosexuality is on a par with other genetic disorders, although compounded by environmental factors, much as say a predisposition to depression can be, or schizophrenia.
Assuming for sake of argument that Homosexuality is a "defect," how can it be a sin? Depression and schizophrenia certainly aren't sins.
God created humanity, male and female he created them, blessed them and told them to multiply, etc. homosexuality falls short of the teleological purpose of human life in God's plans.
So how about those women born incapable of giving birth. They too must "fall short of the teleological purpose of human life in God's plans." Are they sinners? How about men born with defective sperm and are incapable of fertilizing the egg, do they also "fall short of the teleological purpose of human life in God's plans" and deserve to be labeled sinners? If people are born with an orientation that finds having sex with those of the opposite gender just as disgusting as those born with an orientation toward having sex with the same gender to be disgusting, are you really faulting them for not wanting to engage in such sex? How about those couples who choose not to procreate, are they sinners?
But we can then argue the normality of pædophilia, necrophilia, etc,
Yup--in the particular sense I used it.
and you would look increasingly silly in trying to distance yourself from what people recognise as not just abnormal, but perverse.
Okay, you just shifted to the other sense of "normal" here.
Use does not authorise legitimacy [I am sure there is some catchy latin phrase for that], and all you are left with is the 'do no harm' clause.
Absolutely right. And the "do no harm" clause is the all important consideration. We can't condemn people for being schizophrenic, pedophilic, kleptomanic, or homosexual, because they did not choose to be that way. The most we can do is censure some of the behaviors that arise from these conditions. We condemn pedophilic acts because they harm others. We condemn necrophilic acts because they violate the rights of others. We condemn kleptomanic acts because they deprive others of their property. These are all inherently detrimental behaviors. They do harm. So how about homosexual acts? Are they inherently detrimental? If not, how can one conclude they are some how illegitimate?
We have concerted campaigns to get the LGBT agenda across, from an LGBT awareness month in the UK, where they are going into schools promoting their 'culture' to gay parades, etc. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Either gay orientation is 'normal' just as 'straight' is, and let's sort out the legal issues and say no more about it, or 'gay' is more than just a gender orientation, but a programme, a manifesto, a culture. I don't have to put up with hasidim siezing the public forum in dramatic ways, presenting themselves in parades in wierd outfits [well, ok...] denoting sexual deviancy to most people's minds, and then be expected to recognise the innate 'normality' of what they practice and seek.
I don't really know why homosexuals are campaigning in the UK--although I could make a fair guess--so I can't speak to their enterprise, but in the US the root of the "agenda" is simply to attain equal rights to those accorded straight people.
My concern with homosexuality resides almost exclusively within the confines of the church, plus aspects of their promotional behaviour re my children in school, etc. For me it is a theological issue. I recognise the fact that I also have the 'yecch' factor when i consider the matter, but then i have that when I think of abattoirs, so it is inadmissable evidence.
That's a far more tolerant attitude than some of the screaming denunciations I've seen on Tweb. As I have said, if your religion tells you not to tolerate homosexuals within that religion, so be it, but please don't insist that those outside your religion conform to your beliefs, and penalize them for not doing so.

[Solly]

What is the alternative? If god had no hand in the "genetic" cause of homosexuality then how did it arise? Are you saying that were it not for the Fall, homosexuality would never have arisen? That because A&E ate the apple 3-10 % of the people on earth would be "selected" to bear the "curse" of homosexuality? What a very peculiar sin to create. One that has nothing to do with choice, but genetic coding.

But genetic problems are across the board, be it major defects like homosexuality, cystic fibrosis, or depression, obsesive compulsive disorders, etc, or just simple things like a more than average negative attitude to life, a predilection to eat too much, etc. And it is not just the genetic factor, environment plays its part. Most of these are behaviours are things that should be ordinarily dealt with by treatment or avoidance. of course most of them do tend to affect other people negatively, but not all. No one said that it was a particular zap of God, although as Paul says in Romans, the cultural expression of it can be a manifestation of God's displeasure with a society.

Assuming for sake of argument that Homosexuality is a "defect," how can it be a sin? Depression and schizophrenia certainly aren't sins.

The condition itself is not a sin, any more than depression. The manifestation of it is a sin, just as with the others. But saying that, people with depression, even Christians, are not suddenly free from it, and may struggle with it all their life, and we make appropriate legal adjustments to help them, where necessary, but also penalise inappropriate behaviour that might result in harm to others, or even only themselves. I'm no - *gasp* I'm going to say it * - nazi, who believes in perfect and imperfect humans, and lets eliminate and act against the imperfect.

So how about those women born incapable of giving birth. They too must "fall short of the teleological purpose of human life in God's plans." Are they sinners? How about men born with defective sperm and are incapable of fertilizing the egg, do they also "fall short of the teleological purpose of human life in God's plans" and deserve to be labeled sinners? If people are born with an orientation that finds having sex with those of the opposite gender just as disgusting as those born with an orientation toward having sex with the same gender to be disgusting, are you really faulting them for not wanting to engage in such sex? How about those couples who choose not to procreate, are they sinners?

Again, you are mixing up what I thought I had made clear. We are all sinners, to start with. But how the presence of sin in the world manifests itself in each individual, systemically or individually will differ. No, these people are not sinners because of their condition, but their condition can lead them to be active sinners in that area. My wife could not have children for a number of years; she got very worked up about it - understandably - sought treatment, got depressed, and got very rebellious against God about it, and very negative in a way that impacted the rest of the family. We don't believe in IVF, so we didn't go that far down the road, but some might do things that are wrong in pursuance of their own agenda regardless, ie IVF - which some Christians consider wrong due to ovum wastage and the difficulty of the ethics of donation - perhaps adopting children from Eastern Europe knowing they came via a criminal gang and were perhaps kidnapped: we hear the same kinds of things from infertile people as we do from other groups: "We have rights, we have the right to this, we want it". The church must help people adjust to what is their 'lot' in life and to attainable and ralistic goals, just as it helps people with mental and physical handicaps (see for instance the work of L'Arche). How we deal with homosexuality is part of that learning curve, since for so long it was kept hidden and surpressed.

Absolutely right. And the "do no harm" clause is the all important consideration. We can't condemn people for being schizophrenic, pedophilic, kleptomanic, or homosexual, because they did not choose to be that way. The most we can do is censure some of the behaviors that arise from these conditions. We condemn pedophilic acts because they harm others. We condemn necrophilic acts because they violate the rights of others. We condemn kleptomanic acts because they deprive others of their property. These are all inherently detrimental behaviors. They do harm. So how about homosexual acts? Are they inherently detrimental? If not, how can one conclude they are some how illegitimate?

You are still mixing what I thought I had distinguish. i am not out to ban homosexuality. it won't go away just because someone passes a law. I am happy that they should have legal rights of inheritance, visiting, Power of attorney, etc just like other committed couples do. From a Chrisitan point of view I am not happy about the promulgation of a culture that parades sexual profligacy and 'deviancy' as a norm to be accepted by everyone else as 'normal', and which should be openly visible - but then I am somewhat puritanical about the displays of heterosexuality in adverts, TV, films, magazines, pop videos etc, so not much difference there.

I don't really know why homosexuals are campaigning in the UK--although I could make a fair guess--so I can't speak to their enterprise, but in the US the root of the "agenda" is simply to attain equal rights to those accorded straight people.

They are campaigning for the same reasons. Legal rights, and acceptance of their lifestyle. But the latter causes more problems, because that means not only acceptance of their orientation - which most people don't have a problem with - but also acceptance of something defined as LGBT culture in the same way as we should accept Indian or Vietnamese culture.

That's a far more tolerant attitude than some of the screaming denunciations I've seen on Tweb. As I have said, if your religion tells you not to tolerate homosexuals within that religion, so be it, but please don't insist that those outside your religion conform to your beliefs, and penalize them for not doing so.

Well, I haven't. But as a Christian I also have the interests of society at heart, and seeing the decline in British society over the last 25 years, i think it's time Chrisitans stood up and shouted a bit more: excessive alcohol consumption in the young, drug use ditto, increasing uncontrollability of children in the home and street and school, rise in casual violence levels, increasing breakdown of home life, loss of faith in the political system, etc. If homosexuals think they can contribute to a reversal of this, all power to them, but in most cases they are part of the problem, the casualisation of sex, rather than a solution.

[Zeluvia]

See this is where you lose me....

how is the casualization of sex the issue?

it seems to me the issue is the casualization of violence, and most homosexuals are pretty non-violent.

also, I have an idea what family values should mean, it should mean that parents of children are RESPONSIBLE for those children financially, emotionally as well as physically and should be held ACCOUNTABLE to society.

I would like to see national laws about this. If a man father's a child and dissappears, the states should have more power to track him down and hold him accountable.

If children under the age of 15 violate the law, the parents should be held responsible, both the current parents and the birth parents.

I also believe in a total overhaul of the nations education system, with "public" school going to age 20, and alot more emphasis on what I call "real life" education.

Finance, economics, taxes, and business
Health care, first aid, human anatomy, diet
Pyschology, wellness, enviroment,
Consumer law, Insurance law,

Is this stuff being taught in schools to give people the tools they need to be independent and responsible for themselves?

Should people graduate on test scores of core acadamia and not have the tools they need to be citizens?

I say if you cant fill out your income tax form or read a credit card contract or perform CPR, or analyze a companies balance sheet, you shouldnt be getting out of high school.

OFF TOPIC !!

[Alien]

If children under the age of 15 violate the law, the parents should be held responsible, both the current parents and the birth parents.

I mostly agree with your post, but I think you go too far with this one. Sure it would be nice if parents took more responsibility for what their children did, but with some kids it simply isn't possible. Some parents are simply at their wits' end, not knowing what to do next to control their (usually teenage) child. Would you punish them for that failure? And I'm really not sure if you meant the last part ... let's say a man and woman produce a child which is adopted at birth. 15 years later, they are hauled into court and punished for something the kid (that they haven't seen since it was a newborn infant) does. Seriously?

[Minnesota]

Most of these are behaviours are things that should be ordinarily dealt with by treatment or avoidance.
You are still operating under the premise that homosexually is somehow detrimental to leading a happy life, and that it can and should be cured. Unless you can show that homosexuality IS, in fact, detrimental, there is no reason to treat or avoid it. Show me how loving someone of the same sex is detrimental and I might agree with what you say.
The condition itself is not a sin, any more than depression.
Good.
The manifestation of it is a sin, just as with the others.
But the others, and I assume you mean pedophilia and such, have been proven to be detrimental, something you have yet to show with homosexuality. If you want to simply say that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible tells you so, then fine, but don't tell me it's like the others.
Again, you are mixing up what I thought I had made clear. We are all sinners, to start with.
I can't see where this has anything to do with singling out a specific behavior as sinful.

[HerodionRomulus]

Any other recommendations Dr. Mengele?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

As I suspected all along, Robyn Banks was really Spong.

On a serious note, this just seems to take an all or nothing approach to the issue, as if homosexuality is not learned but just present in all circumstances. I would not seek to deny what seems to be clear medical evidence that this sort of thing happens, but it does also appear that homosexuality can be a learned behaviour.
I would agree with this, that it is inborn in some instances and learned in others. The difference in the ongoing debate between proponents of both sides is that proponents of the inborn argument need not demonstrate that it is never a learned behavior, but proponents of the learned behavior argument DO need to demonstrate that it is never biological for their position to be as absolute as they attempt to make it. That's because the inborn argument doesn't imply that no homosexual has ever come to that lifestyle as the result of environment, while the learned behavior argument seems to be as much an "it is environmental" argument as it is an "it is not biological" argument. The former embraces an affirmative that nevertheless makes allowances for exceptions, while the latter embraces an affirmative and rejects exceptions.

[DJ Flash]

You are still operating under the premise that homosexually is somehow detrimental to leading a happy life, and that it can and should be cured. Unless you can show that homosexuality IS, in fact, detrimental, there is no reason to treat or avoid it. Show me how loving someone of the same sex is detrimental and I might agree with what you say.
Do not be decieved: niether the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10 ESV)

...seems detrimental to me.

[HerodionRomulus]

Adulterers? Like Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr to name a few.

[HerodionRomulus]

Do not be decieved: niether the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10 ESV)

...seems detrimental to me.

Only men? So you and Paul approve of lesbians?
That is a dishonest translation skewed by the bias of the translators.
The two words (including the one which they conveniently did not translate here) are far from certain in meaning. Almost every version has a different translation. That is a clear indication that there is no certainty about meaning.

Keep reading till verse 12. And try not to revile gay people.

[CHRISTINAMARIE]

nincompoopery??

Great word. But, I think, misused.

Anyone ever wonder how the theory of evolution accounts for homosexuals? How would homosexual sex help keep the species going? Can that theory explain homosexuality?
with the technology that we have today .. we are able to procreate without the use of intercoarse ...

being gay does not mean there is no want for children

[DJ Flash]

Adulterers? Like Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr to name a few. Did these people commit adultery and then repent and begin/continue to follow Christ? Or are they adulterers---is adultery the lifestyle they openly live in?

[DJ Flash]

The two words (including the one which they conveniently did not translate here) are far from certain in meaning. Almost every version has a different translation. That is a clear indication that there is no certainty about meaning. The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.

That is a dishonest translation skewed by the bias of the translators.Which translations don't translate the two words as having to do with homosexual behavior? Or are the NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NLT, ESV, TNIV, KJV, and NAB (to name a few) translations all dishonest and skewed?

[DJ Flash]

And try not to revile gay people.If someone was in a house that was on fire, would telling them that their house is on fire be considered reviling that person? Or would it be considered love?
If your house was ablaze and you were asleep would you want someone to wake you up and tell you? Or would you want them to encourage you to keep on sleeping?

[HerodionRomulus]

Did these people commit adultery and then repent and begin/continue to follow Christ? Or are they adulterers---is adultery the lifestyle they openly live in?

Let's see; Limbaugh is on wife #4 so that hardly sounds like repentance.
Gingrich is with #2. Nope.
Reagan continued to death with wife #2 and since he refused to make a public profession of faith in Christ, I guess he didn't repent either.

They are all practicing adulterers and practiced divorce.

Mal. 2:16 "For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel"

[HerodionRomulus]

The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.

Which translations don't translate the two words as having to do with homosexual behavior? Or are the NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NLT, ESV, TNIV, KJV, and NAB (to name a few) translations all dishonest and skewed?

dishonest and skewed was referring to the version you cited, ESV. It takes two separate words and renders them wrongly as one thing.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Whether or not it is a choice is totally irrelevent to its morality.

Do you suppose a person wakes up one morning and decides to be a pedophile? How about deciding to be chronically depressed? Maybe a person with diabetes chose to have diabetes?

Every day we wage war against conditions that people are born with because we recognize the condition is a condition of brokeness and we are trying to deliver the person from that unfortunate state.

We don't hate people who have diabetes because they are diabetic.
We don't hate people that are chronically depressed because they are depressed.
Likewise, we shouldn't hate people who are homosexual because they are homosexual.

Furthermore, people who work against these illnesses aren't necessarily bigots -- some of them just find joy in trying to help broken people become unbroken.

[DJ Flash]

Let's see; Limbaugh is on wife #4 so that hardly sounds like repentance.
Gingrich is with #2. Nope.
Reagan continued to death with wife #2 and since he refused to make a public profession of faith in Christ, I guess he didn't repent either.

They are all practicing adulterers and practiced divorce. If what you say is true, if these people willfully live lives of sin, then I fear for these people. I would question whether or not they have true faith in Christ---in which case they would not inherit the kingdom of God.

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10 NASB)Which brings me back to my original point, someone who willfully lives a homosexual life (refusing to turn from this lifestyle) will not inherit the kingdom of God---because this shows that they have not been born again. The same is true for adulterers, thieves, etc.
These people have not experienced the next verse : “And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” ( 1 Cor. 6:11)

[HerodionRomulus]

Whether or not it is a choice is totally irrelevent to its morality.

Do you suppose a person wakes up one morning and decides to be a pedophile? How about deciding to be chronically depressed? Maybe a person with diabetes chose to have diabetes?

Every day we wage war against conditions that people are born with because we recognize the condition is a condition of brokeness and we are trying to deliver the person from that unfortunate state.

We don't hate people who have diabetes because they are diabetic.
We don't hate people that are chronically depressed because they are depressed.
Likewise, we shouldn't hate people who are homosexual because they are homosexual.

Furthermore, people who work against these illnesses aren't necessarily bigots -- some of them just find joy in trying to help broken people become unbroken.

Every day we live with how we are, and often it is not a brokenness, it just is. Should left-handed people struggle to be right-handed.
My point, which I may not be presenting so well, is that sexual orientation is just how a person is, and is not a brokenness and does not need to be fixed.

Further, no one proposes legislation to make diabetics second class citizens. No one pushes laws to discriminate against diabetics, yet there have many and continue to be many attempts to damage gay people.
It is legal in many places to deny employment, housing, mortgages etc to gay people solely because they are gay.
And these attempts to damage are not due to some alleged immorality because many many things which clearly are Biblically immoral, such as divorce, sex with a menstruating woman, adualtery, are condoned and accepted by avowed Christians. As I mentioned above, Ronald Reagan was an adulterer--yet Dobson, Phelps, Falwell, etc etc NEVER promoted legislation to damage him--in fact they gave him great adulation.

[The Creep]

I agree with the sentiment that it is irrelevant whether or not one chooses to be heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual or pansexual. The only question is whether any of those oritentations can be shown to be psychologically or physically destructive. If God really does forbid any of those orientations it must be because they are harmful otherwise God is merely a capricious tyrant and we owe Him/Her no loyalty at all.

[shadypickaxe]

Do not be decieved: niether the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10 ESV)

...seems detrimental to me.
Only men? So you and Paul approve of lesbians?
That is a dishonest translation skewed by the bias of the translators.
The two words (including the one which they conveniently did not translate here) are far from certain in meaning. Almost every version has a different translation. That is a clear indication that there is no certainty about meaning.

Keep reading till verse 12. And try not to revile gay people.

You're right there, HR...the KJV translation of that phrase is "abusers of themselves with mankind". So it's not really concrete as to what the verse is talking about (although it CAN be taken in that direction).

[HerodionRomulus]

I agree with the sentiment that it is irrelevant whether or not one chooses to be heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual or pansexual. The only question is whether any of those oritentations can be shown to be psychologically or physically destructive. If God really does forbid any of those orientations it must be because they are harmful otherwise God is merely a capricious tyrant and we owe Him/Her no loyalty at all.

Then compare gay people to straights. Is the life of Fr. Mychal Judge, Michaelangelo, Frederick the Great of Prussia, Ralph Waldo Emerson or Oscar Wilde any better or worse than Galileo, Catherine the Great, Edgar Allen Poe etc etc.
My point is that gay people come in all sizes shapes and colors, the good the bad and the ugly--no different than any one else--except for sexual orientation.

[The Creep]

that was something of my point. i compare gays and bis to straights and the only superiority there is is a slight edge on aesthetic matters on the part of gays and bis over straights. The point of my comments was to drag the conversation from something i feel misses the point - whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not. and a question also remains - is heterosexuality chosen, normal, and suchlike.

[HerodionRomulus]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002269237_gaybrain10.html?syndication=rss

".....'It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned,' said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada....."

[The Creep]

I heard about this yesterday but it does not change much. I imagine that a decade or so from now many who think homosexuality is wrong will argue that male homosexuality is a genetic defect.

That's why I want to shift the debate to the finally more useful question: whether or not homosexuality is chosen, learned, or programmed - is it harmful or not?

[Sparko]

I heard about this yesterday but it does not change much. I imagine that a decade or so from now many who think homosexuality is wrong will argue that male homosexuality is a genetic defect.

That's why I want to shift the debate to the finally more useful question: whether or not homosexuality is chosen, learned, or programmed - is it harmful or not?

Just go to any pro-gay association web site and check out the health risk warnings they post themselves.


Here are two from GLMA.org (a pro-gay group.)

Males: http://www.glma.org/news/releases/n02071710gaythings.html

snippets: That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known... Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger communities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles... Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population... Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis... Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate... Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus —which cause anal and genital warts — is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men...


Females:
http://www.glma.org/news/releases/n02071710lesbianthings.html
Lesbians have higher risks for some of the gynecologic cancers... Research indicates that illicit drugs may be used more often among lesbians than heterosexual women...

[HerodionRomulus]

And your point is????

Go to any Orthpaedic or podiatric source and you will find that high heeled shoes are a definite health hazard causing major chronic problems with the back and legs.
Engaging in unhealthy activity has no relation to sexuality. What is the realtionship of tobacco addiction to it? or obesity? or....or....

And since 1981, when statistics began to be kept, not ONE verifiable case of AIDS has been transmitted due to female/female sex. Lesbian sex is the SAFEST when it comes to STD's.

And the great majority of AIDS transmission is due to penis/vagina intercourse.
Does that make heterosexuality so evil that it should be anathematized and criminalized?

[The Creep]

HerodionRomulus:

Exactly correct. Couldn've said it better meself.

Some gays engage in radically unhealthy behaviours and they pay the penalty for it in their own bodies but that doesn't mean that homosexuality ITSELF is necessarily unhealthy.

[Sparko]

Some gays engage in radically unhealthy behaviours and they pay the penalty for it in their own bodies but that doesn't mean that homosexuality ITSELF is necessarily unhealthy.

That sounds a lot like what Paul says in Romans,

Romans 1:26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


And in:
1 Corinthians 6:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=6&verse=18&version=31&context=verse)
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

[The Creep]

But of course the Apostle Paul did not understand the etiology of homosexuality. Homosexuality is not the result of people becoming atheists or pagans, or turning their backs on God. Many very spiritual Christians are homosexuals and a fair number of saints have been homosexuals as have a large number of Christian artists such as Michelangelo and Shakespeare.

You might have misunderstood my remark about paying the penalty in the flesh. I was saying the opposite - most homosexuals are not paying any penaltys because their behaviours are not as risky.

[Sparko]

All sin is a result of turning our backs on God. That is what sin is. rebellion.

[The Creep]

Thanks for sharing JohnSparks. But could you give scientific evidence that all homosexuality is harmful?

[Sparko]

Can you give me scientific evidence that all homosexuality is not harmful? this is a silly game.

[Tux314]

Thanks for sharing JohnSparks. But could you give scientific evidence that all homosexuality is harmful?

I'm not JohnSparks, but here you go (http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf)!

[Tux314]

Regarding the original "choice" issue, here are my conclusions from the evidence I have seen.

I have seen not a shred of evidence that homosexuality is caused by a "gay gene". I have read about many studies that purport to support this but really don't. I am sometimes surprised how bad the logic is leading to these conclusions.

However, I also do not believe that homosexual attraction is truly a choice. It appears to be caused by developmental factors over which the person has little control, such as a distant father or rejection from peers. See for instance here (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Root_Problems.htm). These factors are determined well before puberty, and thus we should not be surprised that they feel inborn to some people. The arguments about why someone would choose to be gay in a "homophobic" culture certainly hold up in this respect.

Also, you won't find anything in the Bible to condemn same-sex attractions. Only same-sex lust (Romans 1) and same-sex behavior (Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1).

Nonetheless, it is an irrational leap into insanity to make the claim that homosexual behavior is thus not a choice. Homosexual behavior is wrong. However, it can be forgiven like all other sin (1 Corinthians 6:11).

Lots and lots of people commit "equivocation" here, establishing that homosexual attraction is not a choice and then applying it to behavior. However, it is completely irrational to claim that homosexual behavior is not a choice.

[HerodionRomulus]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11955880.htm

News article from Seattle Times via Kansas City Star (free and quick registration may be needed--sorry)

It's a long article---Select quotes:
......"It's pretty definitive that biological factors play a role in determining a person's sexual orientation."

"That the evidence comes from such disparate directions leads scientists to suspect several different biological pathways may lead to homosexuality. Both genes and hormones appear to be important. Nor do researchers discount the possibility that social factors may play a role.

"I tend not to be a nature-versus-nurture kind of dichotomist," said Roselli, of the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine in Portland. "I think there's probably a very complex interaction that's going on between both biology and the environment that is involved in determining these types of behaviors.".....

....."If you're going to say people choose a sexual orientation when they reach puberty, you're going to have to find some people who remember making that choice, and there aren't any," he said. "The evidence is starting to look pretty good that hormones early in life influence the probability of who you will be attracted to 10 years later, when people start to get their first crushes," he said......

[theblueprint_Ni]

Is Homosexuality a choice?

I adamantly oppose the suggestion that it is not.

Allow me to use sensitive biological language.

When a human is born with a penis it is because his body was created to have intercourse with a female counterpart.

When a human is born with a vagina it is because her body was created to have intercourse with a male counterpart.

If a human is born with both a penis and a vagina it is because one of them was not meant to be there. The one that works is the one that should be used. If both of them are active, I'm pretty sure neither of them will be fertile, lest you could impregnate yourself.

If my biological education is skewed then someone do me the courtesy of correcting me.

The animal kingdom can display homosexual behavior. They can also display murderous behavior. This does not justify an evolutionists view of a natural choice. If so, then we must also justify murderous behavior in humans. Both is unnatural to the highest degree.

Homosexual behavior can have an extrememly detrimental and perverse affect on society, especially in the U.S. If a homosexual lifestyle is embraced as an accepted way of life then we must also accept and cease to discriminate against incestual behavior. If families continue to interbreed and create offspring, the genetic code will eventually degenerate to the point of critical disfunction and burden the rest of "normal" taxpayers who must now care for the incapable sect of society who fall right into the same category as the current "disabled" party. Then we must also legislate the right to multiple partners because every person has the right to express their own beliefs in a consentual manner. If a man takes for himself 50 wives then this leaves 49 youths to go without a bride. These youths are now forced to redirect their sexual desires on eachother since the notion of celibacy, abstinence before marriage, and 1 man and 1 woman partners aren't encouraged. This promotes a nest for disease and mental illness because otherwise heterosexual males are coerced either by the fellow youth who are homosexual and/or their own desire for sexual satisfaction(the inhibition is not instilled because sexual laws are repressive now). Their entire lifestyle has been perversed from it's original state and has become mentally unstable as a result.

Aside from moral implications of homosexuality, when legislation passes for homesexuality it also lays a foundation for other abnormal lifestyle activists to press forward with their own legislation. If the code that once deemed homosexuality as an unacceptable lifestyle has been abolished, there is no longer any reason to put a halt on redefining legal social behavior. A naturalist should be able to walk about freely in the nude because everyone has his or her own nakedness and shouldn't be offended by anothers. Open sexual stimulation and/or masturbation shouldn't be outlawed either since it's a natural product of the biological process.

Ultimately all of these behaviors are a choice. It's whether or not you care about it's implications on the rest of the world that somebody would or would not embrace it. But, I am an absolutist and a Christian. Of course, without an absolute reference to moral code, there is no moral code and if there is no moral code then what I described above will be an inevitable consequence as either just as I described or in some other form of immorality.

[HerodionRomulus]

All you've said is opinion and rants against strawmen.

Please demonstrate at least 2 concrete and verifiable ways in which people decide which sexual orientation they would like to have.
Can any pro-choice person say how and when it happened? When did YOU make such a choice?

Incest? Are you opposed to one of the Biblical models of marriage? Abraham married his sister Sarah.
Polygamy? Again, a Biblical practice. David, Jacob and Elkanah spring to mind. Where is monogamy mandated in the Law? Or NT?

Please provide at least 2 examples in which being gay damages society. Concrete, clinical, verifiable, repeatable examples. That is A+B=C, and not just vague suppositions and assertions.

Those past societies which did not practice discrimination or restricitions on the right of gay people to live did NOT suffer and did not collapse because of it. So too, modern acceptance of gay people has not damaged societies. Is Denmark collapsing because of it? The Netherlands? Micronesian societies? Thailand?

You are quite free to have your views, even if it's wrong. You may express it as long and loud as you wish. You should not be able to use the coercive power of the state to use your religious opinion to oppress and damage other people, who are harmless, just because you don't approve of them.

[Tux314]

In the past couple threads, I have seen two logical fallacies. Equivocation and false dilemma. The equivocation was confusing homosexual attraction with homosexual behavior. The false dilemma was assuming that either you approve of homosexual behavior or you are full of hatred.

[Amanda]

Hello to all of you! I have recently been referred to visit this lively forum site, and can see why it has been recommended. I have viewed a couple of threads... skimming this one rather quickly. Hopefully I can join in on what seems to be the enlightening process of rational thinking. I plan on learning a lot more here. My humble regards to all of you.

Jumping in, I would like to ask a few questions...

First, I do think that sexual orientation is probably a result from a choice for all of us. It seems it is usually done for most of us at such a young age that we are unaware of its sexual implications at the time, and what I have read... the roles attributed to genders have a marked influence on this decision making process.

One question is of the suggestion that homosexual pedophilia is reported to be 50% of the cases... where did you find those research statistics!?! This is a subject I am interested, and I've always heard it is equally proportinate to the overall population, the same gay/lesbian percentage to heterosexuals... if not less. My concerns is that this 50/50 suggestion is laughable it is so unreliable.... sorry to who ever said it, yet I would really have to see that research myself.

If aids is an indicator of the reason we should condemn one being homosexual, then maybe we should stop all blood transfusions also. Heck, we'd have to stop heterosexual activities too! And this argument would only leave lesbian affairs as the proper approach to all intimate relationships, wouldn't it?

Some claim it is immoral. Immoral by what standards? It use to be immoral to show your ankles. Society use to be disgusted with the presentations Elvis Presley made on stage. By the Bible's? I'd like to see one part of scripture in the NT to condemn homosexuality. And if one is referring to Romans 1, read it again without the spin, look up the word man and find it means mankind and woman is a lactating woman and means a nurturing side of mankind. Read it again without the spin, it is not of homosexuality.

If those who condemn it, especially basing their arguments on a Biblical stand, if they should be wrong and caused all this perilous turmoil upon an innocent group of people, driving many to commit suicide, cope by drug addictions, and/or are murdered... what then? What are the responsibilities/accountabilities of those of us who choose to condemn another?

I'm curious to your response...

[Tux314]

First, I do think that sexual orientation is probably a result from a choice for all of us. It seems it is usually done for most of us at such a young age that we are unaware of its sexual implications at the time, and what I have read... the roles attributed to genders have a marked influence on this decision making process.

Perhaps, if the environmental view is correct (and I think it is). However, we do need to be careful not to imply that people directly chose to experience same-sex attraction. Judging from the rest of your post, I don't think that will be an issue with you.

One question is of the suggestion that homosexual pedophilia is reported to be 50% of the cases... where did you find those research statistics!?!

I haven't seen enough research reports to know on this one, but I do know that this survey report (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Root_Problems.htm) gives a similar number. That article is an informal survey built on self-reporting, so I wouldn't give it the same credibility as actual research, however.

This is a subject I am interested, and I've always heard it is equally proportinate to the overall population, the same gay/lesbian percentage to heterosexuals... if not less. My concerns is that this 50/50 suggestion is laughable it is so unreliable.... sorry to who ever said it, yet I would really have to see that research myself.

I haven't really heard anything either way in terms of actual research, so I can't be of much help.

If aids is an indicator of the reason we should condemn one being homosexual, then maybe we should stop all blood transfusions also. Heck, we'd have to stop heterosexual activities too! And this argument would only leave lesbian affairs as the proper approach to all intimate relationships, wouldn't it?

I wouldn't necessarily use AIDS as an argument against homosexuality, although the risk here does seem to be higher than with other factors.

Some claim it is immoral. Immoral by what standards? It use to be immoral to show your ankles. Society use to be disgusted with the presentations Elvis Presley made on stage. By the Bible's? I'd like to see one part of scripture in the NT to condemn homosexuality.

Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

The Greek word from that passage is probably derived from a common Greek translation of Leviticus. The same word also appears in a passage in 1 Timothy. It refers to a man who has sex with another man, not to one who experiences same-sex attraction.

Some scholars have proposed alternate meanings for the word, but they seem to be an obscure minority.

And if one is referring to Romans 1, read it again without the spin, look up the word man and find it means mankind and woman is a lactating woman and means a nurturing side of mankind. Read it again without the spin, it is not of homosexuality.

I've seen some pretty obscure claims about the Romans passage, but not these. J.P. Holding has an analysis of the NT passages here (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html). I myself analyzed (though not with scholarly study like Holding) some of the claims here (http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=11177#11177).

If those who condemn it, especially basing their arguments on a Biblical stand, if they should be wrong and caused all this perilous turmoil upon an innocent group of people, driving many to commit suicide, cope by drug addictions, and/or are murdered... what then?

In the case of murder, we would be commiting a direct sin regardless of the state of homosexuality. We also must figure out whether the suicide and drug addictions are due to attitudes about homosexuality or whether they are due to the same issues that caused the same-sex attractions.

If we are creating actual turmoil even on a non-innocent group of people, this is a problem. We are to love the sinner but not the sin. This includes loving the sinner, whether everyone does this or not. (Actually, also from a Bible perspective no one is innocent...)

What are the responsibilities/accountabilities of those of us who choose to condemn another?

You are committing the same false dilemma fallacy I addressed in earlier posts. It is possible to condemn the sin without condemning the sinner. The proper attitude is that the sinner should stop sinning for his or her own good. Everyone struggles with sin, which is something else we need to keep in mind. For examples of Christians who seem to have the proper attitude, see Probe (http://www.probe.org/content/category/14/56/140/) and Becoming Real (http://www.becomingreal.org). (I have actually met Ray and Sue Bohlin of Probe; they are quite loving people.)

[Amanda]

Perhaps, if the environmental view is correct (and I think it is). However, we do need to be careful not to imply that people directly chose to experience same-sex attraction. Judging from the rest of your post, I don't think that will be an issue with you.


Jerickson, it seems people make these kind of decisions out of driven feelings, not choice. I think many of their lives growing up have been very tumultuous, and how can it be Christ-like to send many over the edge by condemnation. Even "IF" it were wrong (and I see no proof of that at this point), just having this condemning attitude, how does that make Christians look like a loving, merciful, accepting characteristic of Christ? How many people are we drawing to our arena with that attitude? We have to ask ourselves, is Christianity an exclusive membership or inclusive?


I haven't seen enough research reports to know on this one, but I do know that this survey report (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Root_Problems.htm) gives a similar number. That article is an informal survey built on self-reporting, so I wouldn't give it the same credibility as actual research, however.


Jerickson, I read that research site, and thank you for providing it for me. I do have some problems with the clarity in which they published their research.... Concerning the issue of purported homosexual pedophilia being 50% of the total reported cases, this is not what they report. They said that 48% of the homosexual males, that responded to their research were molested by an older person. Further, (this is where it really becomes unclear... as it refers one to #8, yet there is no #8... yet more info is on #4 where..) it says 40% of these older perpetrators were male. Now, is it 40% of the 48% or 40% overall? I'll give them the benefit and say it is the 40% overall. Even so, this is not anything near 50% of the total cases... it is just of these homosexual men that participated in this study... And perhaps done by an organization that had underlying motives?


I haven't really heard anything either way in terms of actual research, so I can't be of much help.


Jerickson, I think you might appreciate this site
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e01/e011i_e.shtml as a totally objectionable and thorough research site. What is significant here is what they don't say! They do say "One line of support for this hypothesis comes from the finding that sex offenders who offend against non-relatives have a higher rate of reoffence than incest offenders. It has also been reported that non-incestuous offenders tend to be single men who have not established enduring relationships with adult females. "

Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

Jerickson, I think that a lot of problems lie in the translations of the original text from which it was taken. The KJV with Strong Numbers attained at http://www.crosswalk.com/ reads:

Corrinthians
6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

effeminate defined by lexicon:
soft, soft to the touch
metaph. in a bad sense
effeminate
of a catamite
of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
of a male prostitute

catamite: : a boy kept by a pederast

This is not homosexuality so much as buying or selling one's self into prostitution at a young age. Offering one's self as the object of another's pleasure for monetary or material gains, at the cost of one's self esteem. This is pediphilia, which is different than homosexuality.


It is possible to condemn the sin without condemning the sinner. The proper attitude is that the sinner should stop sinning for his or her own good. Everyone struggles with sin, which is something else we need to keep in mind. For examples of Christians who seem to have the proper attitude, see Probe (http://www.probe.org/content/category/14/56/140/) and Becoming Real (http://www.becomingreal.org). (I have actually met Ray and Sue Bohlin of Probe; they are quite loving people.)

I think that the problem with condemning, it brings spiritual death. Jesus didn't come to condemn the world, one man brought death by condemnation upon all men, and by one man brought unto all men justification unto life. It seems that condemnation brings emotional death to those that are condemned... and to those that do the condemning too. Perhaps those that condemn vacate their own personal responsibility and accountability for the situation. When we point our finger at someone, there are three more pointing back at us. Think about who did Jesus actually condemn in the Bible?

[HerodionRomulus]

In the past couple threads, I have seen two logical fallacies. Equivocation and false dilemma. The equivocation was confusing homosexual attraction with homosexual behavior. The false dilemma was assuming that either you approve of homosexual behavior or you are full of hatred.

There is no confusion. Sexual orientation is entirely different from behavior. You can choose to sleep with whomever. You do NOT choose your orientation.

Some people can disapprove of something without hate. But there are many avowed Christians who are filled with hatred and despite for gay people.
One good way to see which is which is behavior. If someone deliberately distorts or ignores facts AND promotes or exhibits actions which hurt--then antipathy (at least) would seem to be appropriate.

==========================================
A few comments in general regarding the above posts

Leviticus has no bearing on I Cor. This is a new and novel interpretation based on nothing more than a desire to find any reason no matter how specious for condemning gay people.

Leviticus does NOT condemn same-sex orientation. There are several scholarly views on what it does say, most qualified scholars consider it to be addressing idolatry and pagan religious customs. Jacob Milgrom, the pre-eminent Jewish expert on Leviticus, in his Anchor Bible 3-volume commentary uses linguistic evidence to assert that it is addressing sexual relationships which are too close, that is, incestuous.

I Cor.: the first word is used elsewhere to indicate weakness or wimpiness and is generally considered as applying to male prostitutes. The second word, which is translated differently in almost every version, is referring to their clients.
Prostitution is wrong and it doesn't matter who is doing what to whom, male or female. The 1966 Jerusalem Bible translates as "catamite and sodomite" and footnotes state that it means prostitute and client. Biblia Vulgata also has the same intended meaning.

Back to back posts is against campus decorum. the 2 posts are combined

[HerodionRomulus]

It is possible to condemn the sin without condemning the sinner.

Love the sinner hate the sin is so very un-Scriptural. Don't you read the Bible? There are several OT passages which refute this. I don't have the citations at hand (I'm at work) but would gladly find them once I check in my Bible at home.

========================================

Romans 1. The most mishandled passage around.
The gay-hostile spin given this passage is a 20th century invention. No commentator ever used this in this manner. Luther, in his commentary fails to use the passage against homosexuality, even though he was certainly familiar with the subject: a infamous case in Germany at the time involved a lesbian who lived as a man--and was executed for it---real genuine Christian love huh?

Paul is addressing idolatry. He is using an OT passage against idolatry as his base text, he uses the same language, phraseology and arguments and in spots borrows whole passages.

The two problems with this issue: ignorance of all the facts concerning this subject and arrogant refusal to correct this ignorance.
I am probably safe in saying that j...314 and most everybody else here, has never read much on the subject beyond what comes from the pulpit.
Do you know the works of Nissenen, Boswell, Scroggs, Ranke-Heinemann or Brooten?

Back to back posts are not allowed combined the 2 posts.

[Tux314]

Jerickson, it seems people make these kind of decisions out of driven feelings, not choice.

I would say that they chose to do what they did because of their driven feelings. However, behavior is still always the result of choice.

I think many of their lives growing up have been very tumultuous,

Probably true.

and how can it be Christ-like to send many over the edge by condemnation.

As I said before, you are committing a false dilemma fallacy. I did not suggest that we condemn them as unforgivable people or anything like that. I simply said that we should be opposed to homosexual behavior. This doesn't even mean that we must be outspoken about it!

Even "IF" it were wrong (and I see no proof of that at this point), just having this condemning attitude, how does that make Christians look like a loving, merciful, accepting characteristic of Christ? How many people are we drawing to our arena with that attitude? We have to ask ourselves, is Christianity an exclusive membership or inclusive?

As I said before, we are to accept the people themselves rather than their sins. We SHOULD be loving to homosexuals, and should accept them into the body of Christ. I think you may be preaching to the choir here.

Jerickson, I read that research site, and thank you for providing it for me. I do have some problems with the clarity in which they published their research.... Concerning the issue of purported homosexual pedophilia being 50% of the total reported cases, this is not what they report. They said that 48% of the homosexual males, that responded to their research were molested by an older person. Further, (this is where it really becomes unclear... as it refers one to #8, yet there is no #8... yet more info is on #4 where..) it says 40% of these older perpetrators were male. Now, is it 40% of the 48% or 40% overall? I'll give them the benefit and say it is the 40% overall. Even so, this is not anything near 50% of the total cases... it is just of these homosexual men that participated in this study... And perhaps done by an organization that had underlying motives?

As I said, this site doesn't look like objective critical research. It was a survey of those in their support groups. I simply referenced it because it was the only place I could recall seeing numbers like that.

Jerickson, I think you might appreciate this site
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e01/e011i_e.shtml as a totally objectionable and thorough research site. What is significant here is what they don't say! They do say "One line of support for this hypothesis comes from the finding that sex offenders who offend against non-relatives have a higher rate of reoffence than incest offenders. It has also been reported that non-incestuous offenders tend to be single men who have not established enduring relationships with adult females. "

I think you meant "objective" rather than "objectionable"...

However, I don't see how it is really significant to the topic at hand how abuse is related to homosexual attractions.

Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

Jerickson, I think that a lot of problems lie in the translations of the original text from which it was taken. The KJV with Strong Numbers attained at http://www.crosswalk.com/ reads:

Corrinthians
6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

effeminate defined by lexicon:
soft, soft to the touch
metaph. in a bad sense
effeminate
of a catamite
of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
of a male prostitute

catamite: : a boy kept by a pederast

This is not homosexuality so much as buying or selling one's self into prostitution at a young age. Offering one's self as the object of another's pleasure for monetary or material gains, at the cost of one's self esteem. This is pediphilia, which is different than homosexuality.

The word you looked up is the one the WEB translates as "male prostitutes". The one before the word referring to homosexuality.

I think that the problem with condemning, it brings spiritual death. Jesus didn't come to condemn the world, one man brought death by condemnation upon all men, and by one man brought unto all men justification unto life. It seems that condemnation brings emotional death to those that are condemned... and to those that do the condemning too. Perhaps those that condemn vacate their own personal responsibility and accountability for the situation. When we point our finger at someone, there are three more pointing back at us. Think about who did Jesus actually condemn in the Bible?

Again, we are not called to condemn people under the New Covenant. However, this still does not mean that we must accept sin.

The Pharisees were condemned because they pridefully judged others as inferior to themselves, and went way beyond what the law actually said.

And did you actually look at those sites I referenced? I don't see how they are really pointing their fingers at anyone.

Herodion, I have seen many of those claims and scholars before. I didn't find much substance. See here (http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=11177#11177). Basically, those scholars do seem at least to be in opposition to mainstream scholarship. Holding's article that I linked to also investigates the actual scholarly evidence.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is part of the New Covenant. You'll also notice that the death penalty, the ceremonial law, and the requirement to be Jewish were dissolved by the New Covenant. The actual behavior of Jesus Christ is where the standard of "love the sinner, hate the sin" derives from.

[Amanda]

There is no confusion. Sexual orientation is entirely different from behavior. You can choose to sleep with whomever. You do NOT choose your orientation.
[/notice]

Herodion Romulus, thank you for your response... I do agree that you do not choose your orientation in regards to the outcome of sexual preferences... yet because of role models, I do think that 'some' do choose a preference for being the other sex and inadvertently a future desire for the same sex, done at a young age.

A couple of examples of many... let's say that a mother always told her little girl things like she can't go play baseball because that is for boys. Or a father continually says to a son that he must go to work and earn an income... don't worry about your sisters, as they will just stay home and take care of the house and kids. The little girl might harbor secret desires to be a boy, and the boy might harbor secret desires to be a girl. There is NO sexual connotation attributed to either of these children at this point! NONE! They are unhappy about the role they are forced to take because of their sexuality! Yet, if one harbors a deep rooted desire to be the other sex, when one gets older and desires of sexuality present themselves... and if there are desires to be the opposite sex... who does the opposite sex desire... the same sex that person is! Of course this goes on subconsciously and bypasses the rational mind! They never wanted to go there... their situation brought them no other choice! Do you think their childhood has been super happy? So, as Christians...let's make the rest of their life hell? Compassion?

Jerickson314, I'm sorry I am not computer lieterate enough to post your response in the fancy quote form, yet your posts are appreciated the same... and said about 1 Corinthians 6:9 at http://www.crosswalk.com/ "The word you looked up is the one the WEB translates as "male prostitutes". The one before the word referring to homosexuality." You were right, I had looked up effeminate instead of abuser.... silly me for assuming effeminate was associated with homosexuality. So I decided to research the rest of the words in the verse, including unrighteous... and here is what it said:

unrighteous
descriptive of one who violates or has violated justice
unjust
unrighteous, sinful
of one who deals fraudulently with others, deceitful

Now what is deceitful about a sincere, commited homosexual relationship? Jesus said that the letter of the law kills, what is important is the meaning and purpose of the law in the NT. Why would a consentually, committed homosexual relationship be wrong? The OT might have had a purpose to be fruitful and multiply... and that is NOT the case today with population explosion.

I personally am in no way homosexual... not even an itsy bitsy tiny inclination... all I have to gain is Truth... no hidden agenda. Same sex feddishes don't apply to me, yet I don't think everyone has to be like me. I do think that people's right to be happy is to be respected, as long as it is not at the expense of someone else. Please tell me the reasoning behind homosexuality being detrimental. Why would we pick on them more than adulterers? Liars?

I've heard of homosexuals being chastised into suicide and drug addictions by their "Christian" family... where is the compassion of Christ? Jesus only condemned those that condemned, that's all. Again I ask, is the club of Christianity inclusive or exclusive? I think its inclusive.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Some people can disapprove of something without hate. But there are many avowed Christians who are filled with hatred and despite for gay people.

Who said anything about hate and spite for homosexuals? The Bible is clear on homosexuality and if you can skew the meaning of Scripture any more than what you already have then I suggest you go apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah for God's hasty actions. Were they differen't than what we speak of? Yes, of course. They were an abominable people compared to what our society is dealing with. Homosexuality even in it's most innocent stages is a springboard for all kinds of perversions which the Bible does not condone. It's the beginning of corruption for a society.

Love the sinner hate the sin is so very un-Scriptural. Don't you read the Bible?

Well, if you think that homosexuality isn't a sin then I can imagine you can make the Bible say just aboout anything you want. I guess you missed the passages that speak of homosexualtiy directly and in full detail. Do you embrace the sin with the sinner? "Come just as you are, and stay as you are" Certainly all of us have come to God as sinners, but God deals with our sins the moment we come to Him.

You can choose to sleep with whomever. You do NOT choose your orientation.

Are you from Utah? Haven't you taken the time to take those shutters off your eyes before you read the book of Romans? I suppose that if you were "orientated" toward animals then more power to ya, right? Did you stick your thumb in your eyes before going over Romans 1:26?

Some people can disapprove of something without hate.

I can only imagine your version of disapproving without "hating" as you so passionately charge some of us with.

I am probably safe in saying that j...314 and most everybody else here, has never read much on the subject beyond what comes from the pulpit.

That's pretty bold. I have a hard time believing that you read much on even basic Bible subjects.

Do you know the works of Nissenen, Boswell, Scroggs, Ranke-Heinemann or Brooten?

I never ever heard of any of em'. But if they believe what you believe, I'll be sure to stay clear of them.

If someone deliberately distorts or ignores facts AND promotes or exhibits actions which hurt

Are you against mowing the grass as well? You might catch some lizards in the blade if you don't watch it.

[Amanda]

[QUOTE=theblueprint_Ni]
They were an abominable people compared to what our society is dealing with. Homosexuality even in it's most innocent stages is a springboard for all kinds of perversions which the Bible does not condone. It's the beginning of corruption for a society.
QUOTE]

The Blue Print, could you be so kind as to explain how homosexuality is the "springboard" to anything disrespectful... uhhummm... besides, perhaps, repugnant to your perspectives to life? I'm curious to know how two consenting, committed, adult homosexuals hurt anyone else, or themselves? What exactly would be the Biblical NT purpose and meaning behind condemning this specific act?

[Tux314]

Do you think their childhood has been super happy? So, as Christians...let's make the rest of their life hell? Compassion?

I most certainly agree that we need compassion. However, permitting a dangerous sin is not true compassion. Nor is having an unhealthy obsession with a particular sin, as some are with homosexuality.

Jerickson314, I'm sorry I am not computer lieterate enough to post your response in the fancy quote form, yet your posts are appreciated the same... and said about 1 Corinthians 6:9 at http://www.crosswalk.com/ "The word you looked up is the one the WEB translates as "male prostitutes". The one before the word referring to homosexuality." You were right, I had looked up effeminate instead of abuser.... silly me for assuming effeminate was associated with homosexuality. So I decided to research the rest of the words in the verse, including unrighteous... and here is what it said:

unrighteous
descriptive of one who violates or has violated justice
unjust
unrighteous, sinful
of one who deals fraudulently with others, deceitful

Now what is deceitful about a sincere, commited homosexual relationship?

What does "deceitful" have to do with anything? It's just one of several definitions of unrighteous. That's equivocation! (Equivocation involves changing the definition of a word during an argument.)

There is the issue of whether true commited relationships are actually common among homosexuals. It is possible that the factors which cause homosexual attractions could also be likely to lead to more promiscuous lifestyles. Some studies I have heard of (though I don't have a source) indicated this, IIRC.

Jesus said that the letter of the law kills, what is important is the meaning and purpose of the law in the NT. Why would a consentually, committed homosexual relationship be wrong? The OT might have had a purpose to be fruitful and multiply... and that is NOT the case today with population explosion.

Because it is unhealthy, maybe? Or the fact that sex was designed for heterosexual marriage, and any other use is sinful?

I personally am in no way homosexual... not even an itsy bitsy tiny inclination... all I have to gain is Truth... no hidden agenda.

No one was accusing you of this, to my knowledge.

Same sex feddishes don't apply to me, yet I don't think everyone has to be like me. I do think that people's right to be happy is to be respected, as long as it is not at the expense of someone else.

This does not mean that we must agree with the decisions of everyone. Jesus condemned lust as equivalent to adultery, for example. I don't think lust really hurts anyone beyond the luster.

There is also the question of whether a homosexual lifestyle truly leads to happiness at all, or whether any image of happiness is a delusion. See for instance this article (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Why_Change.htm). It's personal testimony rather than a study, but I still think it is probably valid.

Please tell me the reasoning behind homosexuality being detrimental.

I did above.

Why would we pick on them more than adulterers? Liars?

We shouldn't.

I hypothesize that the reason (lame excuse, actually) we do is that it is easiest to condemn the sins you don't struggle with.

If you are talking about why it is mentioned more in online forums and such, it's probably that no one thinks adultery and lying are OK. No need for a debate.

I've heard of homosexuals being chastised into suicide and drug addictions by their "Christian" family... where is the compassion of Christ?

That's not compassionate. You seem to be arguing from the same false dilemma I described earlier.

Jesus only condemned those that condemned, that's all.

He did also condemn some other sins. Like lust, as I mentioned before. Divorce was another one. He just didn't go accusing people. As I explained to Herodion, this is where we get "love the sinner, not the sin".

Again I ask, is the club of Christianity inclusive or exclusive? I think its inclusive.

Inclusive. I'm not saying that we should exclude homosexuals from the church. I'm only saying that we should not accept homosexual behavior.

[theblueprint_Ni]

The Blue Print, could you be so kind as to explain how homosexuality is the "springboard" to anything disrespectful... uhhummm... besides, perhaps, repugnant to your perspectives to life? I'm curious to know how two consenting, committed, adult homosexuals hurt anyone else, or themselves? What exactly would be the Biblical NT purpose and meaning behind condemning this specific act?

Romans 1:26
26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Paul was talking about the result of idolatry. No one argues that he is speaking about idolatry. But in this passage he is speaking of the REPERCUSSIONS of such a sin. He is speaking directly about homosexuality in v.26. He equates homosexuality with the manifestation of visible errancy in a corrupt society. There is only one reason for homosexual behavior: the embracing of a lustful perversion of God's ordained order of things. Adultery and fornication fall into this category, but homosexuality takes a full 180 of what ought to be. The only thing that is born out of homosexuality is error, and a witness to all others who wish to embrace the twisted desires of the flesh. Some people have an innate desire to practice the most heinous of things; a natural affinity to abominable acts. Would you condone them? I remember a case a little over a year ago when a man had incestual relations with his daughters, bore to them children, and dictated everything the family did. Apparently they consented to all of it. They trusted him. He eventually suaded them to yield to his hand and he slew them all, sacrificed them in a most bizzare way, forever scarring the police who encountered the scene whom have worked on the force for decades saying they had never seen anything so disturbing in their life. Some have to see doctors because of it.

Am I leveling this man with homosexuals? No. However, he had a natural desire to do strange things. Professing homosexuals have a natural desire to do strange things. I have a desire to do strange things. The flesh is at enmity with God. It is the will of God to resist our flesh that compels us to go against everything God ordains. Homosexuality is one of them.

I repeat, their actions and a lack of restrictions on the matter bares witness to ALL that it's OK to embrace your "natural" desires. That's how it effects society. You'll think differently when your own children start acting strangely after seeing perverted things.

[semmie'ssister]

If homosexuality is something we are born as, and not a choice, then are we saying that God Himself is homosexual? I don't think so!
People are not born to be homosexuals. Gen 1:27 states that God created man (and woman) in his image. Genesis goes on to unit Adam and Eve (man and woman) in marriage, not Adam and some other man. There is no room for homosexuality in God's awesome creation.

God goes on to condenm the act of homosexuality in Leviticus. Lev 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both men have done what is detestable."

God gave man (and woman) free will....the ability to choose to follow Him or make their own path through life. Homosexuality is a chosen life style.

I'm not passing any judgement, but for those of you claiming to be saved and living a life of homosexuality, I will be praying for you. Because I also belive the church should have compassion on the individual, but should not tolerate the act of homosexuality.

[Amanda]

Romans 1:26
26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Paul was talking about the result of idolatry. No one argues that he is speaking about idolatry. But in this passage he is speaking of the REPERCUSSIONS of such a sin. He is speaking directly about homosexuality in v.26. He equates homosexuality with the manifestation of visible errancy in a corrupt society. There is only one reason for homosexual behavior: the embracing of a lustful perversion of God's ordained order of things. Adultery and fornication fall into this category, but homosexuality takes a full 180 of what ought to be. The only thing that is born out of homosexuality is error, and a witness to all others who wish to embrace the twisted desires of the flesh. Some people have an innate desire to practice the most heinous of things; a natural affinity to abominable acts. Would you condone them?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I repeat, their actions and a lack of restrictions on the matter bares witness to ALL that it's OK to embrace your "natural" desires. That's how it effects society. You'll think differently when your own children start acting strangely after seeing perverted things.

Blueprint, If you go to http://www.crosswalk.com/ and click on Bible Study Tools, access the KJV with Strong Numbers... you can research these meanings, include its evolution, of these words in Romans 1:26,27. 'Man' can also be referenced as 'mankind', and 'woman' is talking about a 'lactating woman'... which I think means that 'mankind (woman too) gave up a nurturing side of themselves. Taking into account these verses leading up to this, speaking of how some worshipped the created instead of the creator and such... I think these verses could be talking about the religous right of those days, judging and condemning just about everyone. They seem to worship the Bible (created) instead of God (creator)! After these verses you printed, it talks about how they became gossipers, back biters, and warmongers... which sounds more like the judgmental 'religous right' than homosexuals. That is why the first verse in Romans 2 says that if we judge 'them,' then we are no better than they are. How could Romans 2:1 make sense if it were talking about homosexuals?

Jesus made exceptions with laws, like working on the sabbath... healing someone, also condoned getting your ox out of the ditch. Jesus promoted the 'meaning and purpose' of the law, instead of the letter of the law which kills. So I ask you again, what would be the purpose today of finding two committed homosexual adults, happy together, acting respectfully, as being wrong? It may be nature's way of helping with the population explosion? IDK. Unhealthy? Not any more than it is also attributed to heterosexuals.

Just to caution about the effects of our history of religous philosophies... as when we condemned Galileo for dare saying the earth revolved around the sun, killed withches, and I remember when it was such a sin to many by the way Elvis Presley acted on stage! Ed Sullivan Show refused to show him from the waist down!

BTW, I like your signature sentence! Cool! :smile:

[theblueprint_Ni]

Blueprint, If you go to http://www.crosswalk.com/ and click on Bible Study Tools, access the KJV with Strong Numbers... you can research these meanings, include its evolution, of these words in Romans 1:26,27.

I'm sorry Amanda, but if the meaning of Romans 1 can be made to say something other than homosexuality, then any hope to understanding any of the Bible would be futile. I've never seen such a statement that is much more clear than that, except, "Before Abraham was, I AM..."(for those who say that Jesus never claimed to be God). If you look at Hebrew name for God, you can easily interpret God meaning a whole host of god's, turning the scripture into Greek mythology. I strongly believe that what Romans 1 says should be taken at face value. To do what you suggest to Romans 1 would be a severe mangling of Scripture. Word studies are one thing(as in the case for tongues), but trying to find a different meaning than what is plainly stated is another.

BTW, I like your signature sentence! Cool! :smile:

Thanks!

[Yamyam]

As I suspected all along, Robyn Banks was really Spong.

On a serious note, this just seems to take an all or nothing approach to the issue, as if homosexuality is not learned but just present in all circumstances. I would not seek to deny what seems to be clear medical evidence that this sort of thing happens, but it does also appear that homosexuality can be a learned behaviour.
For instance, I heard an interview on the radio by an activist for prison reform in America, based on his experiences as a black gay man who spent time in a Texas jail. He was regularly abused and raped while there, but not by those one would determine as being 'homosexual' men, but by otherwise heterosexual black and white men, who were gang leaders etc, who used rape as a means of control and domination, even referring to their rapees as women. It was a matter of macho-ness, not effeminity.
On the other hand, there seems to be a rise in celebrity/chic lesbianism amongst the stars, and people I have known who have otherwise lived a normal heterosexual life, including having children, who then decide to be lesbians, either for its chic value, or because they 'have had enough of men'.

The thing is: having sex with people from the same gender doesn't necessarily mean you're homo (or bi)sexual. As you already said yourself: Those men in prison didn't do it out of love or attraction but out for the feeling of power and domination.
Those women who decide to have sex with other women aren't bisexual or lesbian, they're probably just curious and like the excitement.
I know about it, because I did it myself. I thought I was bisexual for 5 years but what I sometimes feel for women isn't sexual attraction but admiration. (I want to be just like them) And my mom for instance has always been in love with men, a lot of men, but once fell terribly in love with a women and had a relationship with her. Does that make her bisexual? I'm not sure. Bisexual or homosexual also seems to refer to a certain lifestyle. Many people think that being a homosexual simply means to have sex (and/or relationships) with people from the same gender. I think the thing that makes one homosexual isn't the sex, but it's the drive behind it and the feeling of being in love. Having sex doesn't necessarily mean the drive is there, it can also be curiousness, experimenting (that's what those celebrities do), the excitement.

[Yamyam]

Actually, an atomic bomb could hurt you. Someones private sexual activities
can not.

Still some religious people think it's their duty to strive against gay people because it's not aloud from their God(s). I think that's wrong, because indeed, it doesn't hurt anyone (in fact, some people get happy from it), but I'm afraid WE have to show those people that it's wrong otherwise they will continue with it.

[Yamyam]

Homosexuality a choice?

Yes.

Wow, what a real great argument you put there. Now we all agree.

[Yamyam]

Well that's just plain pathetic.

I actually think it's brilliant.

[Yamyam]

if homosexuality isn't a choice,then how can a person go from being convinced that they are gay to being straight?

Maybe they are bisexual :blush:.

[Yamyam]

What difference does it make whether it is a choice or inherent? Either way it is a manifestly dangerous condition for the practioner and society at large.

Gay men have many diseases that are specific to homo sex. Combined with the immense psychological problems also associated, it leads to an average lifespan of little more than forty years.

It is also particularly dangerous for innocent little boys who are preyed upon by homos. Gays make up only two percent of the population yet pedophilia is about 50 - 50 hetero/homo. This means that homos are 50 times more likely to be pedophiles.

Just for these dangerous reasons alone homosexuality should be made illegal again and practioners should be jailed and placed into forced treament without release until cured.

Yeah, and where do you think gay men get all that psychological problems from? Because of the society and people who condemn homosexuality. If we would all be nice to them they wouldn't have those problems.
And gay specific diseases? Like what? There is no such thing. It's true that you can get many diseases from for instance anal sex, but anal sex isn't the same as homosexuality + you can do it safe.

And to make this clear: most pedophiles are homosexuals, that's true. But that means that if you want to put people in jail it shouldn't be the homosexuals but the pedophiles. Being homosexual doesn't have anything to do with pedosexuality.

You can't cure homosexuality, dear. Can you cure heterosexuality?

I don't see any reason to put homosexuals in jail.

[Yamyam]

I certainly expect you to dismiss my assertions, because if you ever entertained them for one moment you would have to admit that the numbers don't lie. Homophobia is the appropriate response - we should all be afraid for our children around homos.

So you think that your children maybe get homosexual if they wander around homosexual people? Don't you know it doesn't work that way? You get born homosexual. So if your child "becomes" homosexual he has always been that way and he can't be influenced badly by homosexuals.

And if you consider it wrong to aloud your children along homosexuals because they-might-rape/whatever-your-children then you shouldn't be scared of homosexuals but childrapers. (who are mostly not pedosexual because pedosexuals don't want to harm your child on purpose)

[Amanda]

I'm sorry Amanda, but if the meaning of Romans 1 can be made to say something other than homosexuality, then any hope to understanding any of the Bible would be futile.






Hey Blueprint... perhaps you might, just for a moment, consider another interpretation of Romans 1? Perhaps? The interpretation you have, and I once had, is a popular one that has, through the years, compounded the suggestion to much more strength... yet, please try to take another look at it. It only popped out to me, IMHO, after many hours studying this one chapter.
Source: http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineSt...str&language=en

The KJV Strong's Version

Romans 1
1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
1:19
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Amanda: the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is judgment, yielding condemnation that killed us all... right? You don't think it was an apple, do you? God/Jesus has showed us that condemnation is the great killer, do you agree? Condemnation is not a humble position, is it? But the religous right of those days were driven by condemnation, yet knew it was not the merciful compassionate position of God.

1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Amanda: This was the religous right of those days... not gays?

1:23
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Amanda: God is love and mercy, not condemnation and seeking 'pecking order' as the religous right of the times!

1:24
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Amanda: The religous right worshiped their interpretation of the created, the Bible... not God of love and mercy. The religous right lusted after each other!

1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Amanda: Researching this is about a 'lactating' woman, I think to support the idea of a nurturing woman. Those of the religous right were not 'nurturing', they were judgmental!

1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another *; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Amanda: This is the same thing, men not using their nurturing side of themself! Instead, the religous right burned in their lust for each other... doing what exalted themselves... which is an error.

1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Amanda: I think this is the religous right of the time... talking of who is sleeping with who... just the whole judgmental thing! How many wars have been in the name of the religous right? How many in the name of gays? The religous right had elevated themselves into a position that was far less than a humble one.

1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Amanda: Death is by condemnation, and to be carnally minded. To act in a condescending manner to elevate one's self is death by condemnation and to be carnally minded. The religous right is the ones who know God's judgement, and yet they judged others by condemnation and had pleasure in doing so... as it puffed themselves up. And that is why it says in Romans 2:1 that if we judge them, this religous right, we are no better than they.

[Tux314]

Yeah, and where do you think gay men get all that psychological problems from? Because of the society and people who condemn homosexuality.

I have seen this asserted countless times, but I have also seen evidence that it may be false.

1.) SSA (same-sex attraction) may derive from certain issues (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Root_Problems.htm) which could in and of themselves cause problems. The related psychological issues could conceivably be worsened by homosexual behavior, e.g. when "core needs" are expected to be met but aren't. The closest I have seen anyone come to refuting this position is by citing APA position statements and the like, statements which contain assertions but not support.
2.) I have seen it cited (http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf) that even in countries like the Netherlands where homosexuality is much more acceptable than in the United States, the incidence of mental problems is just as bad.

If we would all be nice to them they wouldn't have those problems.

Then why might they still have those problems in Norway? I'd like something more than a begged question about the study being conducted by prejudiced bigots.

Also, we have another false dilemma here. Yet again, people fail to account for the existence of those who acknowledge that God loves homosexuals very much, He just doesn't love the sinful choices they sometimes make. Those of us who try to do the same. Folks like me also don't hate or in any way oppose those who experience same-sex attraction but choose not to act on it.

And gay specific diseases? Like what? There is no such thing. It's true that you can get many diseases from for instance anal sex, but anal sex isn't the same as homosexuality + you can do it safe.

I don't agree about the "you can do it safe" part. Also, the fact that it is possible for a heterosexual to get a certain disease doesn't in any way reduce the prevalence of the disease within the homosexually active population.

You're going to have a hard time arguing that homosexual behavior is as healthy as heterosexual behavior.

You can't cure homosexuality, dear. Can you cure heterosexuality?

:ahem:

The question at hand was whether homosexual behavior was inferior to heterosexual behavior. Your argument begs the question.

What about those who claimed to have changed? Why do you fall back to asserting that they must have been bi?

I don't see any reason to put homosexuals in jail.

I agree.

Amanda: Is your exegesis always this original and creative? Where on earth did you get the "lactating" idea? Not found in Strong's.

[!Fluffy!]

Some claim it is immoral. Immoral by what standards? blah blah blah

If those who condemn it, especially basing their arguments on a Biblical stand, if they should be wrong and caused all this perilous turmoil upon an innocent group of people, driving many to commit suicide, cope by drug addictions, and/or are murdered... what then? What are the responsibilities/accountabilities of those of us who choose to condemn another?

I'm curious to your response...

Okay well you asked for it.

My response? It's all so incredibly boring.

Yours is just another tired guilt-rant from the liberal nonsense chorale.

Please keep in mind we are wasting valuable resources every day on this worn-out rehash of pc babble arguing about *gasp* an aberrant 2% of the population. This tiny minority is alternately coddled, venerated and schmoozed by the intelligentsia on every campus and the MM ala Will and Grace, Queer Eye, etc ad nauseum, while pushing its political agenda with all the finesse of brown-shirted Nazi thugs. So no I don't buy any of your hand-wringing or guilt mongoring, it's as moronic as your scriptural interpretations. IMHO of course.

"Ahem, not to say being gay is a BAD thing" (Seinfeld et al)

Victim Schmictim. Victims of Democracy. Victims of representational government. Victims of multicultural tolerance. Victims of sexual equality. Victims of pluralism. Victims of a culture built on reason, science, individualism, liberty, opportunity and the rule of law.

Pass me a kleenex, the injustice of it all is making me all teary-eyed.

Kind regards to Krisper, over at Little Green Footballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16816#c0017)

[Yamyam]

I
have seen this asserted countless times, but I have also seen evidence that it may be false.

1.) SSA (same-sex attraction) may derive from certain issues (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Root_Problems.htm) which could in and of themselves cause problems. The related psychological issues could conceivably be worsened by homosexual behavior, e.g. when "core needs" are expected to be met but aren't. The closest I have seen anyone come to refuting this position is by citing APA position statements and the like, statements which contain assertions but not support.
2.) I have seen it cited (http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf) that even in countries like the Netherlands where homosexuality is much more acceptable than in the United States, the incidence of mental problems is just as bad.



1.) The point is, dear jerickson: homosexuals found themselves already homosexual as a very little kid. Of course at that time they didn't know the word for it, they later on found out why it wasn't normal, but there were signs they were different, somehow more (if we're talking about the boys) female, or more attracted to boys, more girly friends, etc...Those problems, talked about in the article you linked to, aren't problems which helped heterosexuals develop their homosexuality to become homosexual, they are problems which occur because of people surrounding them who deny/don't like their homosexuality. Yes, many homosexuals didn't feel "man enough" when they were young, because they just had more female qualities than male (GENES), and their father of course wanted them to be "a man". (The classical father of the twentieth century) Their father can abuse them mentally, or even physically because of that, make the boy feel even more "weak" instead of "a real tough man". That femalething and the situation at home ain't a good basis to have a nice time at school either. So of course at school they get bullied and stuff. They are different (GENES), they are quiet/sad (ENVIRONMENT), they don't feel man enough. Then the mother who wants to protect her child exactly fits in the picture. The boy can't go to his father, so he goes to his mother. By the way, he feels like he can communicate better with females so also with his mother.
And the sexual abuse...well, if a homosexual boy has all those problems already, he's an easy victim. (the sexual abuse and fatherproblem can point to a later SM-fascination, or sexual addiction btw)
The sexual experiences when they were young...don't know about that really. Many boys do that anyway. Maybe they do it even more because they feel more/only attracted to boys, so they experiment with them to find out about it. And what about heterosexuals. Many heterosexual boys have sexual experiments with girls and the other way round. It's because they are heterosexual and they feel attracted to the other gender, because they are curious, etc.
Personality traits: True, they were born with all those things. And again, that has to do with their born homosexuality also. It has to do with it.

Then why are there so many homosexuals in this survey who think all those problems contributed to the development of their homosexuality? Well, as the article puts it: "In 2004, People Can Change surveyed the members of its online support groups"
What homosexual visits a site which considers them homosexual as a result of enviromental and gene "problems"? Probably: homosexuals who are still not sure about their homosexuality/fighting with it to find out more about it->are they reliable? A little bit, but not much -> they don't have a homosexual history, they might even turn out to be heterosexual in the end, or even BISEXUAL. What else? Maybe some people who once "were" homosexual and now consider themselves heterosexual -> Let me tell you, those people aren't the majority, those people aren't homosexual, but mostly bisexual, those people STILL have feelings towards people from the same gender but they SUPPRESS it! What else? Homosexuals who are actively striving against the bad/wrong thoughts about homosexuality and who want to make a difference -> they are probably the few people in the survey who don't feel like all those problems make them develop homosexuality.
Of course, most homosexuals don't visit a site like that, they feel like it's nonsense, why visit a site which they don't agree with at all? They prefer gay communities, and those who ARE interested in the origin of This site already had a profound opinion about the whole thing.
If you put a survey like that on a gay community, you'd be suprised with the total difference of results.

And how about the survey itself? What were the exact questions and possible answers? I would like to know that, just to be sure the questions are put properly because of the profound view of the people behind it.
The people who joined the survey (205, ain't that much) are people with homosexual feelings, now or in the past, WITHIN that "People can change"community. As I already mentioned, of course they aren't the homosexual majority. It's a one side view survey.

2.) Yeah, I know that study. Why do you link it with your question about the mental problems in the Netherlands? Ah, because they say something about the psychiatric problems in the Netherlands. Well...first of all, this study puts the things wrong also. First of all: gay sex isn't anal sex, and anal sex isn't gay sex. Heterosexuals practise anal sex too. That doesn't mean there are no risks, sure there can be risks of al those diseases mentioned, but those count for ANYONE, who practice anal sex, especially those who do it unsafe. Fact is many gay men do it, but not ALL the gay men, + gay sex involves more than just anal sex, they can do much more. I don't think the way they put it here, as if only homosexuals practice anal sex and all homosexuals practice anal sex SO "let's call anal sex gay sex :ahem:" is very wrong.
Then...about the Netherlands. I consider you're presumption without a source (this ain't a trustworthy study because of their presumptions) but anyhow:
Yes, in the Netherlands we are more open minded to homosexuality. STILL, it is a taboo within the family! Most children/teenagers who find themselves homosexual have a lot of trouble to tell their parents or friends, but especially their parents. Many parent's don't find it a big problem, some react positively, most of the time they at least have to get used to the idea of having a homosexual child. Some however don't want anything to do with their child, it still happens. The situation of homosexuals having not that many problems in society, is young, very young. It's since a few years it is like that.
More and more muslim people come to live here, and now it is again an issue, because of the huge taboo there is in their families and community.
This is all based on my experiences, not on studies. If you want me to, I can find studies/research for you.



Then why might they still have those problems in Norway? I'd like something more than a begged question about the study being conducted by prejudiced bigots.



I don't know anything about Norway and the Norwegian feelings about homosexuality. Sure I can try to do some research, but as for now, I don't live there, I don't know the situation.



Also, we have another false dilemma here. Yet again, people fail to account for the existence of those who acknowledge that God loves homosexuals very much, He just doesn't love the sinful choices they sometimes make. Those of us who try to do the same. Folks like me also don't hate or in any way oppose those who experience same-sex attraction but choose not to act on it.


That's a possibility. However, there are other explanations of the famous so called homosexual passages in the bible. Again, I can look it up for you, tell you about cults etc and the historical background of those passages.


I don't agree about the "you can do it safe" part. Also, the fact that it is possible for a heterosexual to get a certain disease doesn't in any way reduce the prevalence of the disease within the homosexually active population.


True. So what?



You're going to have a hard time arguing that homosexual behavior is as healthy as heterosexual behavior.


I'm not arguing homosexual behaviour is as healthy as heterosexual behavior. I agree with you it isn't normal, and I also agree anal sex isn't very healthy. I do believe homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals and shouldn't considered wrong or immoral or less human. I believe they aren't wrong. I believe their feelings for the other gender is genuine. I have seen documentary's about the first homosexuals to get married and I got very touched by their tears. Tears of feeling unaccepted. I got touched by their true love for eachother. I've been grown up with a friend of my mother who lives together with a woman, since many many years. She's like a second mother to me. I see absolutely nothing wrong in their relationship. I love them for the way they are.


:ahem:

The question at hand was whether homosexual behavior was inferior to heterosexual behavior. Your argument begs the question.


I don't think so.

What about those who claimed to have changed? Why do you fall back to asserting that they must have been bi?


I tell you why. I've thought I was bisexual for 5 years. Right now, I believe I'm heterosexual. The lines aren't easy to mark. There are so many feelings of love, and feelings of sexual attraction towards others. I wasn't in love with girls, I felt admiration for them, but that feeling was somehow close to being in love. Some people aren't even bisexual, they just like to experiment with people from the same gender, sexually. People do that because of the excitement, or to find out their identity. It isn't as black/white as bisexual/heterosexual/homosexual puts it. (and what about pedosexual, asexual, antisexual, attraction to elderly people, attraction to animals!!)
If you listen carefully to people who claimed they have changed you hear them say that they still sometimes feel attracted to a person from the same gender...they just don't give in, they have a wife/husband now, or whatever etc. And also...the people who claim they don't have feelings for people from the same gender AT ALL anymore...whether suppress it, OR...which is very possible for a bisexual person indeed don't have those feelings, for instance because they just don't meet any suitable person, because they're not open for it (anymore), because they get sexual and mental satisfaction with their partner, or because an unexplainable reason. My mom for instance, has ALWAYS been in love with men, except ONCE. When she was 20, she fell crazy in love with a woman, and they had a stormy intense relationship. Later on the relationship ended, and they got best friends. She never fell in love with a woman again and found a man and got children and got happy. Did she change from being bisexual into a heterosexual then? I don't know about that. I guess she could still meet a fantastic woman and fall crazy in love, but somehow it doesn't happen.

[Amanda]

Okay well you asked for it.

My response? It's all so incredibly boring.

Yours is just another tired guilt-rant from the liberal nonsense chorale.

Please keep in mind we are wasting valuable resources every day on this worn-out rehash of pc babble arguing about *gasp* an aberrant 2% of the population. This tiny minority is alternately coddled, venerated and schmoozed by the intelligentsia on every campus and the MM ala Will and Grace, Queer Eye, etc ad nauseum, while pushing its political agenda with all the finesse of brown-shirted Nazi thugs. So no I don't buy any of your hand-wringing or guilt mongoring, it's as moronic as your scriptural interpretations. IMHO of course.

"Ahem, not to say being gay is a BAD thing" (Seinfeld et al)

Victim Schmictim. Victims of Democracy. Victims of representational government. Victims of multicultural tolerance. Victims of sexual equality. Victims of pluralism. Victims of a culture built on reason, science, individualism, liberty, opportunity and the rule of law.

Pass me a kleenex, the injustice of it all is making me all teary-eyed.

Kind regards to Krisper, over at Little Green Footballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16816#c0017)

I'd appreciate it if you quoted me accurately from now on, instead of putting in what you want and calling it my quote!!! That seems a bit ingenuous, to say the least. The rest of what you have stated... it speaks for itself.

[Tux314]

1.) The point is, dear jerickson: homosexuals found themselves already homosexual as a very little kid. Of course at that time they didn't know the word for it, they later on found out why it wasn't normal, but there were signs they were different, somehow more (if we're talking about the boys) female, or more attracted to boys, more girly friends, etc...Those problems, talked about in the article you linked to, aren't problems which helped heterosexuals develop their homosexuality to become homosexual, they are problems which occur because of people surrounding them who deny/don't like their homosexuality. Yes, many homosexuals didn't feel "man enough" when they were young, because they just had more female qualities than male (GENES), and their father of course wanted them to be "a man". (The classical father of the twentieth century) Their father can abuse them mentally, or even physically because of that, make the boy feel even more "weak" instead of "a real tough man". That femalething and the situation at home ain't a good basis to have a nice time at school either. So of course at school they get bullied and stuff. They are different (GENES), they are quiet/sad (ENVIRONMENT), they don't feel man enough. Then the mother who wants to protect her child exactly fits in the picture. The boy can't go to his father, so he goes to his mother. By the way, he feels like he can communicate better with females so also with his mother.

You seem to be painting roughly the same picture the ex-gays do, from a different perspective. It is an interesting question whether the rejection and such is caused by the "gay gene", or whether homosexuality is caused by the rejection and such. It does seem that homosexuals are almost universally different from the start - but this doesn't mean that the difference necessarily arises from homosexuality. The genes could code for other things, like sports aptitude and temperament, which affect the factors causing homosexuality. The "gay gene" seems like a mythical scapegoat. I have not seen any good evidence for a gay gene.

And the sexual abuse...well, if a homosexual boy has all those problems already, he's an easy victim. (the sexual abuse and fatherproblem can point to a later SM-fascination, or sexual addiction btw)

Maybe.

The sexual experiences when they were young...don't know about that really. Many boys do that anyway. Maybe they do it even more because they feel more/only attracted to boys, so they experiment with them to find out about it. And what about heterosexuals. Many heterosexual boys have sexual experiments with girls and the other way round. It's because they are heterosexual and they feel attracted to the other gender, because they are curious, etc.

I think the ex-gays claim that these experiences, which may have been driven by other emotional needs and such, "wired" the sexual connotations of the same sex into the brain.

Personality traits: True, they were born with all those things. And again, that has to do with their born homosexuality also. It has to do with it.

Again, it seems that the inborn personality traits led to the unwanted development of homosexual attractions, not the other way around. They seem to have been born "different" but not necessarily gay. Raised in a different culture with different gender ideas, the same people might not have developed the attractions.

I am not claiming that anyone chose to experience homosexual attraction.

Then why are there so many homosexuals in this survey who think all those problems contributed to the development of their homosexuality? Well, as the article puts it: "In 2004, People Can Change surveyed the members of its online support groups"

That would certainly have something to do with it. However, one cannot deny that parallel motivations affect arguments on all sides of this issue.

What homosexual visits a site which considers them homosexual as a result of enviromental and gene "problems"? Probably: homosexuals who are still not sure about their homosexuality/fighting with it to find out more about it->are they reliable? A little bit, but not much -> they don't have a homosexual history, they might even turn out to be heterosexual in the end, or even BISEXUAL.

I would think that most would know whether they experienced same-sex attraction or not...

They might in fact be more reliable than active homosexuals, as homosexual behavior could certainly create an additional bias in how one views homosexuality.

What else? Maybe some people who once "were" homosexual and now consider themselves heterosexual -> Let me tell you, those people aren't the majority, those people aren't homosexual, but mostly bisexual, those people STILL have feelings towards people from the same gender but they SUPPRESS it! What else?

Most say that their feelings were significantly reduced. Is it not normal to retain minor symptoms of an illness even after recovery? Especially one that has developed and affected you for years? The fact that any significant degree of change is possible casts doubt on a genetic origin of homosexuality.

I'll bet you former drug addicts, smokers, and alcoholics probably have urges to go back to their old ways. Does this discredit the change that they do achieve?

Homosexuals who are actively striving against the bad/wrong thoughts about homosexuality and who want to make a difference -> they are probably the few people in the survey who don't feel like all those problems make them develop homosexuality.

How do we know that these are bad or wrong? What about those who claim to have achieved significant change? Relapse and occasional remaining symptoms are to be expected with recovery from nearly anything.

Of course, most homosexuals don't visit a site like that, they feel like it's nonsense, why visit a site which they don't agree with at all? They prefer gay communities, and those who ARE interested in the origin of This site already had a profound opinion about the whole thing.

It would be pretty difficult, probably impossible in fact, for a homosexual (or anyone else) to be completely neutral on this issue.

The same argument reversed could also apply to ex-gays and sites in the gay community. It establishes nothing.

If you put a survey like that on a gay community, you'd be suprised with the total difference of results.

Not surprised at all. As I said before those in the gay community would actually have an additional bias.

And how about the survey itself? What were the exact questions and possible answers? I would like to know that, just to be sure the questions are put properly because of the profound view of the people behind it.

It's here (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Surveyoncauses.pdf). The biases affecting the study are also discussed.

The people who joined the survey (205, ain't that much) are people with homosexual feelings, now or in the past, WITHIN that "People can change"community. As I already mentioned, of course they aren't the homosexual majority. It's a one side view survey.

Are you saying that the majority is always right? And of course the survey is one sided. I already knew that.

In general, a survey isn't the best way to prove something. A research institution like NARTH (http://www.narth.com) is a better place to seek such arguments. Many claim that NARTH is not credible, but most refuse to discuss NARTH, using the excuse that they don't want to give it any sign of credibility. I would think that if it were actually so easy to tear apart, someone would do so. Many people burn straw men (http://www.anythingbutstraight.com) and make assertions (http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html), but few actually address the arguments.

I posted the survey mainly because it gives a concise listing of the issues that may be involved.

Yeah, I know that study. Why do you link it with your question about the mental problems in the Netherlands? Ah, because they say something about the psychiatric problems in the Netherlands. Well...first of all, this study puts the things wrong also. First of all: gay sex isn't anal sex, and anal sex isn't gay sex. Heterosexuals practise anal sex too. That doesn't mean there are no risks, sure there can be risks of al those diseases mentioned, but those count for ANYONE, who practice anal sex, especially those who do it unsafe. Fact is many gay men do it, but not ALL the gay men, + gay sex involves more than just anal sex, they can do much more. I don't think the way they put it here, as if only homosexuals practice anal sex and all homosexuals practice anal sex SO "let's call anal sex gay sex :ahem:" is very wrong.

The study discusses more than just anal sex.

Then...about the Netherlands. I consider you're presumption without a source (this ain't a trustworthy study because of their presumptions) but anyhow:

It was the first source I could think of. I should have linked you here (http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html) instead.

Do realize that every source has presumptions in an issue as charged as this one.

Yes, in the Netherlands we are more open minded to homosexuality. STILL, it is a taboo within the family! Most children/teenagers who find themselves homosexual have a lot of trouble to tell their parents or friends, but especially their parents. Many parent's don't find it a big problem, some react positively, most of the time they at least have to get used to the idea of having a homosexual child. Some however don't want anything to do with their child, it still happens. The situation of homosexuals having not that many problems in society, is young, very young. It's since a few years it is like that.

Yes, stigma still exists. However, there is a lesser degree. The age of the situation could have an effect, yes. However, this would mean that we have a lack of information, not proof that the stigma causes the problems.

This is all based on my experiences, not on studies. If you want me to, I can find studies/research for you.

If you want to, I guess. I am prety busy.

I don't know anything about Norway and the Norwegian feelings about homosexuality. Sure I can try to do some research, but as for now, I don't live there, I don't know the situation.

The NARTH article does discuss it a bit more.

That's a possibility. However, there are other explanations of the famous so called homosexual passages in the bible. Again, I can look it up for you, tell you about cults etc and the historical background of those passages.

I've seen several of the other explanations. Worst logic I've seen since my classmates tried to convince me that pi was exactly 3. Clear evidence of unsupported presumptions, resulting in conclusions without substantial support. See here (http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=11177#11177), for instance.

True. So what?

We may still have a primarily homosexual problem.

I'm not arguing homosexual behaviour is as healthy as heterosexual behavior. I agree with you it isn't normal, and I also agree anal sex isn't very healthy.

Looks like we're on the same page here.

I do believe homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals and shouldn't considered wrong or immoral or less human.

Same rights? Yes, I agree. However, I will be clear that marriage is by definition a heterosexual institution.

Wrong? Here I disagree. Homosexual behavior is wrong, though attraction isn't. The Bible passages are a large part of this reason, since it is my standard for all morality.

Immoral? Same thing as wrong.

Less human? I agree with you here, as well.

I believe they aren't wrong. I believe their feelings for the other gender is genuine.

Genuine doesn't mean "OK". People have genuine feelings for other people's spouses, for instance.

I have seen documentary's about the first homosexuals to get married and I got very touched by their tears. Tears of feeling unaccepted.

The question is, was this a cause or an effect of the homosexuality? I would say it is a mixture of both.

I got touched by their true love for eachother.

If we are discussing a sexual relationship, I would still say it is wrong.

I've been grown up with a friend of my mother who lives together with a woman, since many many years. She's like a second mother to me. I see absolutely nothing wrong in their relationship.

Only if it is a sexual relationship is there a problem.

I love them for the way they are.

Don't confuse who people are with what they do.

I don't think so.

The concept of "curing" a sexual orientation implies that there is a problem with it. When addressing a claim that only homosexuality has a problem, you can't just suddenly assert that heterosexuality is equivalent. If you used "change", we might have a different story. However, your argument would still be unsupported for several reasons. For one, it seems that homosexuality is caused by problems. About the only way to change heterosexuality would be to artificially create these problems, which no one would do. There is also the significant possibility that opposite-sex attraction is genetic but can fail to express itself due to environmental factors. Then, changing homosexuality would involve bringing out the genetic potential.

I tell you why. I've thought I was bisexual for 5 years. Right now, I believe I'm heterosexual. The lines aren't easy to mark. There are so many feelings of love, and feelings of sexual attraction towards others. I wasn't in love with girls, I felt admiration for them, but that feeling was somehow close to being in love.p

Did the feeling actually change? Could you have "de-sexualized the need", to use ex-gay terminology? This also doesn't prove anything about others.

Some people aren't even bisexual, they just like to experiment with people from the same gender, sexually. People do that because of the excitement, or to find out their identity.

Seems it might be possible.

It isn't as black/white as bisexual/heterosexual/homosexual puts it. (and what about pedosexual, asexual, antisexual, attraction to elderly people, attraction to animals!!)

What does this have to do with the question of whether change is possible?

If you listen carefully to people who claimed they have changed you hear them say that they still sometimes feel attracted to a person from the same gender...they just don't give in, they have a wife/husband now, or whatever etc.

Addressed above.

And also...the people who claim they don't have feelings for people from the same gender AT ALL anymore...whether suppress it, OR...which is very possible for a bisexual person indeed don't have those feelings, for instance because they just don't meet any suitable person, because they're not open for it (anymore), because they get sexual and mental satisfaction with their partner, or because an unexplainable reason.

You start appealing to them having to be bisexual, or having an "unexplainable reason". I ask, is your belief in the permanence of homosexuality falsifiable?

And as you said, things aren't always black and white. How much of the homosexual population could be somewhat bisexual?

And why can't you believe that the change came from the factors that the people themselves say the change probably came from?

My mom for instance, has ALWAYS been in love with men, except ONCE. When she was 20, she fell crazy in love with a woman, and they had a stormy intense relationship. Later on the relationship ended, and they got best friends. She never fell in love with a woman again and found a man and got children and got happy. Did she change from being bisexual into a heterosexual then? I don't know about that. I guess she could still meet a fantastic woman and fall crazy in love, but somehow it doesn't happen.

This could show that sexuality could be more fluid than some believe.

I will commend you, YamYam, for actually addressing points rather than attacking me as being a "homophobic bigot". Most people seem to prefer the latter option...

[Fr. Seraphim]

This thread seems to have very little 'natural science' and a whole lot of personal opinion.

Now I am a newcommer to this forum, but I want to throw in my two cents worth here.

The arguements against homosexuality do not reflect biodiversity everywhere evident in nature. In humans there are anatomical males who are chromosomally female (XX). This is caused by hyperactive adrenal glands in the mother if it happens in utero, but can happen post partum if the girl has the hyperactive adrenal glands. It causes androgen overload. The opposite, anatomical females who are chromosomally male (XY) happen due to in utero androgen inaction or insensitivity. Almost without exception, these people will be attracted to their chromosomal opposites and appear outwardly gay/lesbian. Do you condemn them for homosexuality? Or is it okay for them? What about hermephrodites (XXY chromosome)? Then there is the case of the X/ and X/ mosaics that have no reproductive organs at all, usually develop small breasts from testosterone deficiency and have at most a small rudimentary vagina. How do you classify such people?

Recent studies in Sweden (Where else, right?) show that gay men and straight women had the same brain reactions when exposed to testosterone and estrogen in an airborne form. They study found them to be opposite of straight men's reactions. Gay men and straight women both had their olfactory and pre-optic areas light up like Christmas trees on the PET scan when exposed to testosterone. Straight men only had the olfactory areas light up normally. The opposite was true with the estrogen exposure. Do you tell these people that the way they were born is a sin? Where is the choice here?

Homosexuality is very common in mammals. Anyone who has grown up on a ranch or farm will know what I am talking about. Monkeys commonly practise what we would call homoerotic behaviour, especially among males. Remember that this is the world that God spoke into existance and called "Very Good."

Also, go to www.well.com/user/aquarius/contents.htm for a highly documented and researched piece on "Eunuchs born that way from their mother's wombs" being a third gender in the ancient world and biblically acceptable. This should prove interesting reading for most.

[Tux314]

The arguements against homosexuality do not reflect biodiversity everywhere evident in nature.

For one, biodiversity in plants and animals can have no implications on human morality. How about species killing their own young? (Oh, I forgot. Liberals like abortion...)

Also, diversity that has nothing to do with homosexuality don't need to be reflected in arguments regarding homosexuality.

In humans there are anatomical males who are chromosomally female (XX). This is caused by hyperactive adrenal glands in the mother if it happens in utero, but can happen post partum if the girl has the hyperactive adrenal glands. It causes androgen overload. The opposite, anatomical females who are chromosomally male (XY) happen due to in utero androgen inaction or insensitivity.

In all the arguments I've seen on both sides regarding homosexuality, not once have I seen this claim. It might be more convincing if you could cite an actual source.

Almost without exception, these people will be attracted to their chromosomal opposites and appear outwardly gay/lesbian.

If you can demonstrate that these people actually exist, this would certainly seem likely. However, I am pretty sure that this would be the case for only a tiny fraction of the homosexual population, even assuming the case of such inborn illness. Any argument you could make would have no effect on how we are to deal with homosexuality in general.

Do you condemn them for homosexuality? Or is it okay for them?

The exact same answer I would give for every other homosexual in existence - the attraction is not to be condemned, only the behavior. The attraction would still be an illness, but I wouldn't condemn someone for SSA (same-sex attraction) any more than I would condemn someone for brain cancer or Down's Syndrome. SSA (same-sex attraction) is OK, SSB (same-sex behavior) is not.

It so happens that only SSB is addressed in the Bible, not SSA.

What about hermephrodites (XXY chromosome)?

Interesting. They would have to abide by whatever gender they surgically chose, probably. Perhaps these would fall into the same category as the "born eunuch" category - not destined for sexual behavior.

Then there is the case of the X/ and X/ mosaics that have no reproductive organs at all, usually develop small breasts from testosterone deficiency and have at most a small rudimentary vagina. How do you classify such people?

Here we're probably right on the money with the "born eunuch" category. These people aren't even physically capable of sexual behavior!

Again, SSA is not condemned. Only SSB.

Recent studies in Sweden (Where else, right?) show that gay men and straight women had the same brain reactions when exposed to testosterone and estrogen in an airborne form. They study found them to be opposite of straight men's reactions. Gay men and straight women both had their olfactory and pre-optic areas light up like Christmas trees on the PET scan when exposed to testosterone. Straight men only had the olfactory areas light up normally. The opposite was true with the estrogen exposure.

I'm familiar with that study. It tells us practically nothing about the origin of homosexuality. It only addresses the effects.

Do you tell these people that the way they were born is a sin?

This study does not prove that they were born this way. I recognized that this conclusion was hogwash the first time I saw it. See here (http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=10640#10640). I later found a more professional response here (http://www.narth.com/docs/scrutinized.html).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people chose to experience SSA or that SSA is a sin. I'm just pointing out that this study proves nothing people purport it to prove.

If you want to study the actual scientific issues, you're going to have to learn a skill called "critical thinking".

< half sarcasm >If you want to be involved in science without learning critical thinking, become a science journalist. It seems that the journalists who write articles on scientific studies always come to conclusions not supported by the study.< / half sarcasm >

In all seriousness, don't just accept a conclusion because some journalist claims it comes from the data. Look at the data yourself, and see if there's any way the data really supports the conclusion. There are many unfounded claims about conclusions in reports on controversial topics such as homosexuality and stem cell research.

Where is the choice here?

The study does not shed any light on whether homosexuality is chosen. However, it is reasonable to believe the SSA people who say that their SSA was not a choice. It's unfortunate so many people refuse to give the same benefit of the doubt to ex-gay testimonies.

Homosexuality is very common in mammals. Anyone who has grown up on a ranch or farm will know what I am talking about. Monkeys commonly practise what we would call homoerotic behaviour, especially among males. Remember that this is the world that God spoke into existance and called "Very Good."

Some animals also kill their own young, and many male animals injure each other quite seriously in fights for females. It is already quite obvious that animal behavior has little or no bearing in questions of morality.

Also see this article (http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html).

Also, go to www.well.com/user/aquarius/contents.htm for a highly documented and researched piece on "Eunuchs born that way from their mother's wombs" being a third gender in the ancient world and biblically acceptable. This should prove interesting reading for most.

That guy needs a copy of Strong's Greek Lexicon.

2135 eunouchos yoo-noo'-khos

from eune (a bed) and 2192; a castrated person (such being employed in
Oriental bed-chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man; by
implication, a chamberlain (state-officer):--eunuch.
see GREEK for 2192

You might also want to read the introduction. In summary:

"I have a strong political agenda. I am gay and want an excuse to act on my desires. So, I know that I have to come to the conclusion that Matthew 19:12 is about gay people. In order to do this, I'm going to have to find support for the following statements."

I can't get past that part. Too biased, and reminds me of a similar but unsupported article I found elsewhere. (See here (http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=11177#11177))

Also note that the first source you come upon is pre-WWI. This isn't how you start a "well-researched" paper.

Looks as though if he's right, we have a Bible that contradicts itself. Turns up quite often when this happens that something needs more research! I've already seen the research on other passages, and have concluded that the Bible condemns SSB. His interpretation just doesn't hold up with a consistent Bible.

It could potentially apply to a celibate SSA person, though. This would not create a contradiction.

[Yamyam]

You seem to be painting roughly the same picture the ex-gays do, from a different perspective. It is an interesting question whether the rejection and such is caused by the "gay gene", or whether homosexuality is caused by the rejection and such. It does seem that homosexuals are almost universally different from the start - but this doesn't mean that the difference necessarily arises from homosexuality. The genes could code for other things, like sports aptitude and temperament, which affect the factors causing homosexuality. The "gay gene" seems like a mythical scapegoat. I have not seen any good evidence for a gay gene

Me neither. And I don't believe in 1 gene which explains everything, which stands for "homosexuality". (and if so, what about bisexuality, would there also be a bisexual gene??)
I think the cause of homosexual orientation lies within several gene codes and probably in hormones also (maybe in genes causing certain hormones to be produced more or less then with heterosexual people? don't know if it works that way, I'm no biologist, but it seems logical).
But I really don't think that heterosexuality can be developed towards homosexuality in a human life because of certain environmental (mad bad dad, overwhelming passive mom etc) and genetical factors. (careful personality, dislike of rough sports, certain more female qualities etc)
I'm not saying it's totally impossible, but it seems quite impossible to me because a parent can already recognise homosexuality within a VERY young child. How can a child be obviously homosexual already that young? And what about people who you can't recognise as being homosexual on the outside but are homosexual? And what about bisexual people? I would like to know the view of people who claim homosexuality is an orientation developed in youth on those questions/issues.
Hmm..but anyway...even if a homosexual is born heterosexual and got homosexual because of enviromental and genetical factors, the boy couldn't choose to be hetero. Telling boys they shouldn't fall in love with other boys because it isn't right doesn't help them staying straight or anything. It isn't something you can prevent from happening. And why is that so?


I think the ex-gays claim that these experiences, which may have been driven by other emotional needs and such, "wired" the sexual connotations of the same sex into the brain.

That's nonsense. There are many many people who had experimental sex as kids, including me. Because girls mostly have girl friends and boy mostly have boy friends as a child, and they feel more safe and trusted in a situation with a friend, they mostly experiment with people from the same gender.
I know many girls who did these things with girls, and boys who did these things with boys, and none later on turned to be homosexual.
Why and how would that wiring you're talking about happen? Children who experiment sexually aren't necessarily aroused by it, they are just curious and some like the feeling of intimacy. They don't know about orgasms or the ways of achieving that. They're curious of the feeling, taste, look etc of other persons bodys and genitals. They play "fucking" or "doctor" in stead of "mother and father", "army" "dolls". I don't see how that could make them homo (or bi?) sexual.



Again, it seems that the inborn personality traits led to the unwanted development of homosexual attractions, not the other way around. They seem to have been born "different" but not necessarily gay. Raised in a different culture with different gender ideas, the same people might not have developed the attractions.

Then why are there homosexual people all around the world, in every culture or community?
And what kind of culture with what kind of values etc. do you think people should live in to prevent them from getting homosexual?
PS. Homosexuality isn't always unwanted. I wanted to be lesbian or at least bisexual, because I wanted to be different. Eventually I wasn't and wanting it didn't help me developing any lesbian/bisexual feelings. (I'm not saying you say 'to want' can make a difference) True, that's new in the West. :wink:
Most people want to be heterosexual, yes, though the more a homosexual gets accepted, the less he feels he doesn't want to be homosexual.



I am not claiming that anyone chose to experience homosexual attraction.


I'm not saying you do.



That would certainly have something to do with it. However, one cannot deny that parallel motivations affect arguments on all sides of this issue.


I don't understand the second sentence (it may have to do with my English). Can you explain it?


I would think that most would know whether they experienced same-sex attraction or not...


There are hundreds of sites for people who are not sure, who doubt about their sexual orientation; many ask "Am I bisexual?" "How do I know if I'm homosexual?" "Should I have sex with a woman (as being a woman myself) to find out whether I'm lesbian/bi?" etc, so apparently not. Some people just don't know what exactly it is they're feeling towards someone else, like me for instance. There are many ways of loving, and it isn't always easy to understand what exactly it is and find a definition for it.


They might in fact be more reliable than active homosexuals, as homosexual behavior could certainly create an additional bias in how one views homosexuality.


I don't understand.
And active active...I wasn't really talking about being homosexual and have an active sexlife, but more about homosexuals who are homosexual for quite some time. I mean: A girl who thinks she might be lesbian I think is less trustable than a woman who had proven to be lesbian for many years. You don't need an active sex life for that.


Most say that their feelings were significantly reduced. Is it not normal to retain minor symptoms of an illness even after recovery? Especially one that has developed and affected you for years? The fact that any significant degree of change is possible casts doubt on a genetic origin of homosexuality.


Fact is: those symptoms never disappear completely. Or do they? And why don't they disappear completely?
Well, there you have a nice question: If homosexuality is totally genetical, then how can a homosexual change?
Well..I'm still not sure about the changepart. I don't think a real change/transformation has taken place. I guess it has more to do with strong will, openness to certain feelings, and the people you meet/things you experience, so if such a person goes back to his former thinking he'll sure get "gay" again. I mean: you can form your own mind to a certain level, whether you have gay genes or not. Having a gay gene or genes that stimulate homosexuality in some way doesn't mean you can't influence your own thinking. Though...being totally gay, and turn to be able to sexually love women also...that can't be possible with a gay gene. Then there should be some heterosexual gene also...:D or erm...a bisexual gene? Hum....this is difficult. The problem is: if I say we have a so called gay and a so called heterogene then how does one get a sexual orientation anyway? AH!, but a gene can be weak or strong right? Can't it be we're all bisexual in a way->we all have a heterogene and a homogene or other genetic factors or hormons which makes a person gay/bi/hetero according to the weakness/strongness (dominance and such) of those genes or hormons or whatever. You can also see it in percents: my mom for instance is 95% hetero and 5% homosexual. But I guess you can only consider someone more gay or hetero after some years of experience. Before my moms twenties she was 100% hetero, but she did fall in love with a woman once. Before nobody knew. And after nobody knew whether she would fall in love with women more times. The actual balance can only be made after someones dead :P. I wouldn't say she turned from heterosexual to homosexual to heterosexual. (seems complicated) I also wouldn't exactly call her bisexual, while in the sense of the word she is. If I would say she's bisexual people would think she falls in love with women on regular basis, while it only happened once. I guess you can say everyone is bisexual but some are 99% homosexual and some are 99% heterosexual. It doesn't explain why MOST people are 99% heterosexual though.
I believe this theory already exists. You know any good arguments against it? :teeth:


I'll bet you former drug addicts, smokers, and alcoholics probably have urges to go back to their old ways. Does this discredit the change that they do achieve?


Uh, no? But that also has to do with abstinence, openness and will. If a former smoker lights a new sigarette it tasts just as fine as before, so in that way he didn't change.


How do we know that these are bad or wrong? What about those who claim to have achieved significant change? Relapse and occasional remaining symptoms are to be expected with recovery from nearly anything.


What do you mean with bad and wrong in this context?



It would be pretty difficult, probably impossible in fact, for a homosexual (or anyone else) to be completely neutral on this issue.


We don't want them to be neutral do we?


The same argument reversed could also apply to ex-gays and sites in the gay community. It establishes nothing.


It could, BUT there are very little ex-gays (0,0001%????) and MANY gays who say they can't change. I'm not saying the majority is always right, but in this case, people who think they know about their feelings, I suppose a majority is more reliable than a minority. Why not listen to both parties? Well, they both say different things which can't go together. It's hard not to choose for one side.


Not surprised at all. As I said before those in the gay community would actually have an additional bias.


No comments.


It's here (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Surveyoncauses.pdf). The biases affecting the study are also discussed.


I already saw that. It does clear some things up, but it doesn't show the exact questions asked.



Are you saying that the majority is always right? And of course the survey is one sided. I already knew that.


Scroll back.


In general, a survey isn't the best way to prove something. A research institution like NARTH (http://www.narth.com) is a better place to seek such arguments. Many claim that NARTH is not credible, but most refuse to discuss NARTH, using the excuse that they don't want to give it any sign of credibility. I would think that if it were actually so easy to tear apart, someone would do so. Many people burn straw men (http://www.anythingbutstraight.com) and make assertions (http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html), but few actually address the arguments.


Exactly, a research institution. Thank you for the link. I understand that people don't find it credible because of the presumptions on NARTH? Maybe a little less credible than an objective study I suppose, yes. But as long as they are open with their results and methods, they explain their manners of staying objective during their research, it can be trustworthy and worth reading. I do prefer an objective study, so I can see the different views and sides in one. Now I have to compare :P.
What arguments do they use for the incredibility or NARTH?


I posted the survey mainly because it gives a concise listing of the issues that may be involved.


Ok.

The study discusses more than just anal sex.


It does, but I find the whole study less credible when they start making wrong definitions about anal and gaysex.


It was the first source I could think of. I should have linked you here (http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html) instead.

Now you do.


Do realize that every source has presumptions in an issue as charged as this one.


Exspectations you mean :P.


Yes, stigma still exists. However, there is a lesser degree. The age of the situation could have an effect, yes. However, this would mean that we have a lack of information, not proof that the stigma causes the problems.


True. Maybe we should wait a little longer :).


If you want to, I guess. I am prety busy.


I have found some studies but I haven't had time to read them yet.



I've seen several of the other explanations. Worst logic I've seen since my classmates tried to convince me that pi was exactly 3. Clear evidence of unsupported presumptions, resulting in conclusions without substantial support. See here (http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=11177#11177), for instance.


I now have seen many explanations the last few days and I have found very convincable information. I'll start a (few) topic(s) about it later.
And about that site: Dear, that's a forum. :teeth: On a forum you have many crazy illogical nonsense talking people.



We may still have a primarily homosexual problem.


What are you talking about?


Looks like we're on the same page here.


Cool.



Same rights? Yes, I agree. However, I will be clear that marriage is by definition a heterosexual institution.

So not same rights. :ahem:


Wrong? Here I disagree. Homosexual behavior is wrong, though attraction isn't. The Bible passages are a large part of this reason, since it is my standard for all morality.


Yeah yeah.

Immoral? Same thing as wrong.


Is it? What's your definition of wrong then? I think something immoral isn't necessarily wrong...so it's not the same.


Less human? I agree with you here, as well.


Good.



Genuine doesn't mean "OK". People have genuine feelings for other people's spouses, for instance.


True. I'm just saying that the bible speaks of homosexuality (in the opinion of most Christians) as filthy, perverse and such, while I consider those feelings genuine, sweet, real, not some illusion from the devil or something.


The question is, was this a cause or an effect of the homosexuality? I would say it is a mixture of both.


Eh, none? It's more an effect of other peoples feelings (disgust for instance) towards them.


If we are discussing a sexual relationship, I would still say it is wrong.


Ok. I don't :).


Only if it is a sexual relationship is there a problem.


Ah, so gay people should stay in celibacy for the rest of their lives and/or try to get heterosexual? I consider such a view loveless and unchristian. Everyone should have the possibility to find a partner. Unfortunately, it's isn't possible for everyone, because for instance pedosexuals can harm a child mentally. Homosexuals do not harm other people or themselves by practicing it. If one decides to do celibacy because he thinks it's good for him or herself, than we're also not the ones to judge whether that's good or wrong. Of course it also makes a difference whether you only consider homosexual actions as wrong or you also want to get laws or something against it and choose for others that way. But even if you only judge it wrong, you also judge other people.


Don't confuse who people are with what they do.


Ok, I'll put it more clear: I love them for what they are and whether they do practice their homosexuality has no effect on my love for them.


The concept of "curing" a sexual orientation implies that there is a problem with it. When addressing a claim that only homosexuality has a problem, you can't just suddenly assert that heterosexuality is equivalent. If you used "change", we might have a different story. However, your argument would still be unsupported for several reasons. For one, it seems that homosexuality is caused by problems. About the only way to change heterosexuality would be to artificially create these problems, which no one would do. There is also the significant possibility that opposite-sex attraction is genetic but can fail to express itself due to environmental factors. Then, changing homosexuality would involve bringing out the genetic potential.


I guess...


Did the feeling actually change? Could you have "de-sexualized the need", to use ex-gay terminology? This also doesn't prove anything about others.


No. I just didn't know what the feeling was and know it's more clear, though I still don't know what I feel for women really. At least I don't get sexually aroused by them, I only find some very beautiful, or admirable. And I also like to hug naked with girls, with no sex involved. I guess I'm still straight.



What does this have to do with the question of whether change is possible?


It's more about definition of homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and change.


You start appealing to them having to be bisexual, or having an "unexplainable reason". I ask, is your belief in the permanence of homosexuality falsifiable?


Uhm, here my English fails. :blush: What's falsifiable? (no I don't have a dictionary)



And as you said, things aren't always black and white. How much of the homosexual population could be somewhat bisexual?


No idea.


And why can't you believe that the change came from the factors that the people themselves say the change probably came from?


Because they're a significant small group within the homosexual community. I could also ask you: why can't you believe that a homosexual is born that way as the majority of homosexuals are saying?
Because there is a significant small group homosexuals who say they can change, right?
So, this isn't going anywhere.


This could show that sexuality could be more fluid than some believe.


It does.


I will commend you, YamYam, for actually addressing points


I think I do.

rather than attacking me as being a "homophobic bigot".


Where did you get that from? In my opinion you're not a homophobic bigot at all. :tongue: No, I've seen some on muslimforums, they don't think, they don't listen, they only shout names and curse.

Most people seem to prefer the latter option...
I'm not most people, in the contrary.

[Tux314]

Me neither. And I don't believe in 1 gene which explains everything, which stands for "homosexuality". (and if so, what about bisexuality, would there also be a bisexual gene??)
I think the cause of homosexual orientation lies within several gene codes and probably in hormones also (maybe in genes causing certain hormones to be produced more or less then with heterosexual people? don't know if it works that way, I'm no biologist, but it seems logical).

This explanation still has problems. The LeVay study established this. They found pairs of identical twins in which at least one twin was gay. In 50% of pairs, both were gay. In 50%, one was gay and one was straght even though both shared the same genes and fetal environment. 50% is certainly high enough to show that genes have an influence, but it is low enough to actually disprove the notion that homosexuality is purely the result of genes.

Even the APA doesn't cite genes as the sole cause of homosexuality:

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

The APA is frequently accused of being motivated primarily by liberal political motivations, and claims that homosexuality is normal and immutable (unchangeable). If even they admit that the environment plays a role, it probably does.

But I really don't think that heterosexuality can be developed towards homosexuality in a human life because of certain environmental (mad bad dad, overwhelming passive mom etc) and genetical factors. (careful personality, dislike of rough sports, certain more female qualities etc)

It could also be that all sexuality develops, and these factors prevent heterosexuality from developing at the same time they cause homosexuality to develop. The developmental theory of all sexuality would explain why different cultures have different ideas of who is attractive (e.g. in medieval times, being fat was considered attractive. Also, in some tribal cultures women go topless without inciting too much lust from the men.) Obviously, hormones do play a large role in sexual attraction. However, it could be environmental factors that determine who the attraction will be directed towards.

I'm not saying it's totally impossible, but it seems quite impossible to me because a parent can already recognise homosexuality within a VERY young child.

Can you cite even an anecdote? And how can certain behavior be determined to be homosexual, rather than just abnormal?

How can a child be obviously homosexual already that young?

What signs are usually cited to support the notion that the child is homosexual?

It also seems strange that you claim the parents can determine this at a very young age, but people can't figure it out for themeselves until well after adolescence. Unless you are talking about different people.

And what about people who you can't recognise as being homosexual on the outside but are homosexual?

What about them? They could have developed SSA from the same sorts of factors as everybody else.

And what about bisexual people?

Such people probably had fewer or weaker environmental factors driving towards homosexuality than homsexuals, but nonetheless had significant factors not present in heterosexuals. It is also possible that these people developed both sexual orientations from some sort of "blank slate" at birth.

I would like to know the view of people who claim homosexuality is an orientation developed in youth on those questions/issues.

I've never seen anyone claim that it was developed in youth. Most claim that most development happens during childhood, with sexualization happening as puberty occurs.

Hmm..but anyway...even if a homosexual is born heterosexual and got homosexual because of enviromental and genetical factors, the boy couldn't choose to be hetero.

No, the boy certainly wouldn't have chosen to be homo and not hetero. However, it might be possible for change, through what would probably be a long and difficult process. PeopleCanChange has one of the more detailed descriptions here (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/MANSIntro.htm), at least regarding male homosexuality.

However, I would say that change should be voluntary. We shouldn't force anyone to undergo the change process if they don't want to.

It is also important to note that many report attempting change without truly changing. Different degrees of change may be achievable for different people.

Telling boys they shouldn't fall in love with other boys because it isn't right doesn't help them staying straight or anything.

You are correct; that wouldn't do anything to bring about any degree of change or prevention. We shouldn't put so much shame on people for experiencing SSA, especially when it is unwanted.

It isn't something you can prevent from happening.

Hypothetically, it is probably preventable in most situations. Just as nearly all car accidents are preventable, but they still happen. Nonetheless, it isn't up to the individual to prevent the development of SSA. Other people, such as parents and same-sex peers, would seem to be the ones who would have to be involved.

And why is that so?

People are often insensitive and uncaring, especially as children.

That's nonsense. There are many many people who had experimental sex as kids, including me. Because girls mostly have girl friends and boy mostly have boy friends as a child, and they feel more safe and trusted in a situation with a friend, they mostly experiment with people from the same gender.
I know many girls who did these things with girls, and boys who did these things with boys, and none later on turned to be homosexual.

I haven't seen anyone claim that this sort of experimentation was the primary cause of SSA. It is just claimed that it is a "catalyst" (a term from chemistry referring to a chemical that isn't consumed in a reaction but nonetheless speeds it up), helping bring about SSA when other factors are already present.

Why and how would that wiring you're talking about happen?

Neural connections. Basically, the brain is made of cells called "neurons" that connect to each other. If I bring about a word, say "dog", certain imagery will come into your mind. You probably came to associate an experience with some dog, perhaps your own if you have one, with the word "dog". Now, when you read or hear the word, your brain accesses these memories and ideas.

Likewise, we might have a pre-SSA boy. This boy may already be lacking connection with other males, and doubting his own masculinity. If he has a chance to play sexually with another boy, he might feel acceptance. He may come to associate the concept of male acceptance with the feelings of the sexual experience. Thus, when he is really craving some male acceptance, he will perceive this need as a sexual attraction.

What seems to be a more common story is that the pre-SSA boy doesn't have a chance to interact with other males. He may discover ways to evoke sexual feelings, like masturbation, as an escape mechanism from the existing psychological problems. This may be similar to how an alcoholic discovers drunkenness as an escape mechanism from the problems of life. Our boy might then come to associate relief from the pain with sexual feelings, going from pre-SSA to SSA.

Children who experiment sexually aren't necessarily aroused by it, they are just curious and some like the feeling of intimacy. They don't know about orgasms or the ways of achieving that. They're curious of the feeling, taste, look etc of other persons bodys and genitals. They play "fucking" or "doctor" in stead of "mother and father", "army" "dolls". I don't see how that could make them homo (or bi?) sexual.

In most cases, it probably doesn't. The SSA feelings are only likely to result when existing factors make the person ripe for this.

Then why are there homosexual people all around the world, in every culture or community?

Different cultures may have different situtations that bring about SSA. For instance, rejection by peers and same-sex parents is a common story. This is likely to result when the person lacks qualities his or her particular culture defines as proper gender qualities. For instance, in the USA, athletic ability is connected with masculinity. In a Far East culture, intelligence may have more to do with it. The nerd will be at a higher risk for peer and same-sex parent rejection in the USA, while the jock will be at a higher risk for peer and same-sex parent rejection in the Far East.

And what kind of culture with what kind of values etc. do you think people should live in to prevent them from getting homosexual?

The answer would be different for each individual.

Ideally, we should have a culture where parents always give their kids attention and affirmation, and where peers are always accepting of each other even at the youngest ages. However, these expectations are unlikely to be fulfilled in any actual culture. This is why SSA still exists in just about every culture.

PS. Homosexuality isn't always unwanted. I wanted to be lesbian or at least bisexual, because I wanted to be different. Eventually I wasn't and wanting it didn't help me developing any lesbian/bisexual feelings. (I'm not saying you say 'to want' can make a difference) True, that's new in the West. :wink:
Most people want to be heterosexual, yes, though the more a homosexual gets accepted, the less he feels he doesn't want to be homosexual.

You are probably the exception rather than the rule, but this has little bearing on the morality of same-sex behavior.

I'm not saying you do.

Good.

I don't understand the second sentence (it may have to do with my English). Can you explain it?

I was saying that all arguments from all sides are going to have political motivations. It would be nearly impossible to study this subject with no preconceptions, knowing how charged an issue it is in modern culture.

There are hundreds of sites for people who are not sure, who doubt about their sexual orientation; many ask "Am I bisexual?" "How do I know if I'm homosexual?" "Should I have sex with a woman (as being a woman myself) to find out whether I'm lesbian/bi?" etc, so apparently not. Some people just don't know what exactly it is they're feeling towards someone else, like me for instance. There are many ways of loving, and it isn't always easy to understand what exactly it is and find a definition for it.

I would have to say that someone who isn't sure whether they experience true SSA probably doesn't. Depending on age, they may still be in a pre-SSA stage, however.

Most of the people on the PeopleCanChange site seem to be people who are quite sure that they experience SSA. Some of them may also experience opposite-sex attraction, however.

I don't understand.

If we are talking about active homosexuals in particular, there is the issue that active homosexuals may be involved in a "defense mechanism" called "rationalization". It's when you feel guilty, and you try to explain away why what you did was OK. This may affect one's judgment.

And active active...I wasn't really talking about being homosexual and have an active sexlife, but more about homosexuals who are homosexual for quite some time. I mean: A girl who thinks she might be lesbian I think is less trustable than a woman who had proven to be lesbian for many years. You don't need an active sex life for that.

Such people would probably be trustworthy. We do have to look at the actual claim, though. I need to go pretty soon, but I will address this first.

Some statements are by nature "negative". That is, they deny a truth rather than accepting it.

Let's say someone mentions the town of Adair, Missouri. You want to find out whether this town is real. You then ask 100,000 tourists. 99,998 of them tell you that they have never heard of Adair, Missouri, and that it must be a fictional town written to be the subject of some book or movie or something. 20,000 of them have heard of Adair County in Missouri, but none of the 99,998 have heard of any town called Adair. Thus, we have the vast majority claiming that Adair, Missouri is a fictional place. They are asserting a negative: that Adair, Missouri does not exist.

However, you have two people with testimonies similar to the following:

"I live in Kirksville, Missouri. I frequently travel to Illinois on business. Every single time I go between Missouri and Illinois, I pass right through the town of Adair. They have a vacant cathedral called St. Mary's Church with a cemetery next to it. There is also an outhouse next to the church. The town is one of the smallest I have seen, so I'm not surprised no one has heard of it."

Both testimonies are very similar, and report identical landmarks and sites in the town. Would you believe that Adair, Missouri actually exists? Please come up with your reply before you check your sources (http://tinyurl.com/8moxs) to find out the truth. (I used TinyURL (http://tinyurl.com) so you couldn't tell whether I was linking to a factual site or to a site for a fiction work.)

I'm out of time tonight, so I'll respond to the rest of your post when I have a chance.

[Tux314]

This explanation still has problems. The LeVay study established this. They found pairs of identical twins in which at least one twin was gay. In 50% of pairs, both were gay. In 50%, one was gay and one was straght even though both shared the same genes and fetal environment. 50% is certainly high enough to show that genes have an influence, but it is low enough to actually disprove the notion that homosexuality is purely the result of genes.

Oops, got my studies mixed up. The LeVay study was a different study. This one was the twin study.

[Yamyam]

This explanation still has problems. The Twin study established this. They found pairs of identical twins in which at least one twin was gay. In 50% of pairs, both were gay. In 50%, one was gay and one was straght even though both shared the same genes and fetal environment. 50% is certainly high enough to show that genes have an influence, but it is low enough to actually disprove the notion that homosexuality is purely the result of genes.


Interesting. Do you have a link to that study?
Do genes determine every part and working/effect in a body? (not sure) Did they also look at the working of hormones in both the twins? Is the hormoneproduction exactly the same with twins throughout their lifes? And did they also look at the brain of the twins, and whether particular parts were bigger/smaller?
(because there is some proof with brains and so..)


Even the APA doesn't cite genes as the sole cause of homosexuality:

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

The APA is frequently accused of being motivated primarily by liberal political motivations, and claims that homosexuality is normal and immutable (unchangeable). If even they admit that the environment plays a role, it probably does.


It just sounds to me they want to be as careful as possible with their pronouncements. I suppose they just don't know what it is and to keep everyone happy they speak in general. And if you read careful too, you notice it's not really their opinion they're saying; they talk about "most scientists", "numerous theories".



It could also be that all sexuality develops, and these factors prevent heterosexuality from developing at the same time they cause homosexuality to develop. The developmental theory of all sexuality would explain why different cultures have different ideas of who is attractive (e.g. in medieval times, being fat was considered attractive. Also, in some tribal cultures women go topless without inciting too much lust from the men.) Obviously, hormones do play a large role in sexual attraction. However, it could be environmental factors that determine who the attraction will be directed towards.



You know what I was just thinking? Those people who filled in that survey you sent me, and who mostly thought their homosexuality was an effect of all kinds of bad influences and some genetical stuff in their youth...I wonder if gaypeople who think they can't change had such a childhood too. Maybe the changingthing has to do with that ugly childhood, in stead of the homosexuality. Also because I know so many gay and bipeople who had a wonderful childhood...
It's speculative, I know...but maybe....


Can you cite even an anecdote? And how can certain behavior be determined to be homosexual, rather than just abnormal?


Sure. I know a young men who is 25 now and lives together with another men, they're a couple. He never was so conscious about him being gay, he did feel different but never really knew what it was, until age 19. Before he tried to have sex with women but didn't even get the thing up. At 19 he got the point, had a hard time accepting it, and he didn't dare to go into the gayscene or anything. A few years later he did and the first time he got into a gaybar he met the men he now lives together with and the same evening he had the greatest sex ever and felt like "coming home" as he puts it. He was frightened to tell it, but under pressure of the men he told his mom but she wasn't suprised at-all. She had always known, she said, since he was a little boy (about 4) he was more interested in dolls than cars, more interested in friendship with girls than with boys and of course he never fell in love with a girl..Ok anecdote?

What do you mean by the secend sentence? Oh I see..
Well...abnormal...behavior or feelings that aren't homosexual, must have another reason, rather than just being "abnormal". I suppose you can try to find out. If a boy is 6 and he falls in love with a classmate, than what else can it be than homo or bisexuality?


What signs are usually cited to support the notion that the child is homosexual?


I already mentioned some signs above, but I'll ask some homosexuals, and try to find something in such a study I found but still haven't read. I let you know when I know more...cause now I'm just speculating.


It also seems strange that you claim the parents can determine this at a very young age, but people can't figure it out for themeselves until well after adolescence. Unless you are talking about different people.

True. But it isn't so strange.
1. Sometimes it easier for an outsider to see what is going on. Why do you think we have psychiatrists?
2. If a person has some disorder, it can play up in youth, and of course the boy/girl feels different, know that something is wrong or somehow abnormal, but he/she can only know exactly WHAT is going on once they hear the diagnose, and recognise themselves in it. A homosexual boy is probably not very aware of what exactly is going on, he needs to read/hear something about it and find out: hey, I have that too!
3. Once you're in puberty you start thinking and asking questions to yourself. Before, you're not so busy with who exactly you are and what makes you the person you are.
These 3 things aren't as separated of course as I put them here, they have to do with eachother.
Right now you can see a tendence (at least here in Holland) where kids know more and more earlier in life that they are gay or bisexual or something else, because they hear about it sooner. They see it on telly, or hear their father curse and ask "What is a gay?" In former days people found out very late about theirselves in comparison with now. This confirms my "theory" about the disorder and the diagnose :P. Also because it's more an open subject now, parents tell/ask their children sooner about it. Children get information at school and from friends, so they get conscious about them being gay etc. more earlier.



What about them? They could have developed SSA from the same sorts of factors as everybody else.


Maybe...but..why then are most (?) homosexual people, and why especially men so easy to recognise as a gay, and others not at all?


Such people probably had fewer or weaker environmental factors driving towards homosexuality than homsexuals, but nonetheless had significant factors not present in heterosexuals. It is also possible that these people developed both sexual orientations from some sort of "blank slate" at birth.

You mean, the homosexuals with less characteristic homosexual features are more gay because of their genes than because of environmental factors? Why not the opposite? (I'm not suggesting something, I really don't know why it is)


I've never seen anyone claim that it was developed in youth. Most claim that most development happens during childhood, with sexualization happening as puberty occurs.


Oh, that's what I mean, childhood! :blush: :blush: :blush: (bad using of English words)


No, the boy certainly wouldn't have chosen to be homo and not hetero. However, it might be possible for change, through what would probably be a long and difficult process. PeopleCanChange has one of the more detailed descriptions here (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/MANSIntro.htm), at least regarding male homosexuality.


I've got some interesting study(s) here about those changing programmes. I'll link it to you later, once I read it myself. :wink:


However, I would say that change should be voluntary. We shouldn't force anyone to undergo the change process if they don't want to.

It is also important to note that many report attempting change without truly changing. Different degrees of change may be achievable for different people.


Very good. I know you're ok, but some people just make me sad...they don't even want homosexuals to give the chance to change, they just want to kill them. ;-(. It can make me very angry and sad that those people exist.
Oh, so many try to change but it doesn't "work"? You have any statistics showing that? (though it'll probably be also in those studys I found)


You are correct; that wouldn't do anything to bring about any degree of change or prevention. We shouldn't put so much shame on people for experiencing SSA, especially when it is unwanted.

Hypothetically, it is probably preventable in most situations. Just as nearly all car accidents are preventable, but they still happen. Nonetheless, it isn't up to the individual to prevent the development of SSA. Other people, such as parents and same-sex peers, would seem to be the ones who would have to be involved.


You really think so? :O. I don't think you can compare car accidents to homosexuality. I'm very curious about the way you think that would work, how do you see that happening?


People are often insensitive and uncaring, especially as children.

I haven't seen anyone claim that this sort of experimentation was the primary cause of SSA. It is just claimed that it is a "catalyst" (a term from chemistry referring to a chemical that isn't consumed in a reaction but nonetheless speeds it up), helping bring about SSA when other factors are already present.


Claimed by who? And if you're talking about a research: were heterosexuals also included? Because I don't think it makes sense to claim experimental sex during childhood is a catalyst to develop homosexuality when people didn't look at heterosexuals and their "experiments" as a child.



Neural connections. Basically, the brain is made of cells called "neurons" that connect to each other. If I bring about a word, say "dog", certain imagery will come into your mind. You probably came to associate an experience with some dog, perhaps your own if you have one, with the word "dog". Now, when you read or hear the word, your brain accesses these memories and ideas.

Likewise, we might have a pre-SSA boy. This boy may already be lacking connection with other males, and doubting his own masculinity. If he has a chance to play sexually with another boy, he might feel acceptance. He may come to associate the concept of male acceptance with the feelings of the sexual experience. Thus, when he is really craving some male acceptance, he will perceive this need as a sexual attraction.


Great! You convinced me.


What seems to be a more common story is that the pre-SSA boy doesn't have a chance to interact with other males. He may discover ways to evoke sexual feelings, like masturbation, as an escape mechanism from the existing psychological problems. This may be similar to how an alcoholic discovers drunkenness as an escape mechanism from the problems of life. Our boy might then come to associate relief from the pain with sexual feelings, going from pre-SSA to SSA.


Associating relief from pain with sexual feelings I understand, but what does that have to do with SSA? (in case of masturbation?)


In most cases, it probably doesn't. The SSA feelings are only likely to result when existing factors make the person ripe for this.

Different cultures may have different situations that bring about SSA. For instance, rejection by peers and same-sex parents is a common story. This is likely to result when the person lacks qualities his or her particular culture defines as proper gender qualities. For instance, in the USA, athletic ability is connected with masculinity. In a Far East culture, intelligence may have more to do with it. The nerd will be at a higher risk for peer and same-sex parent rejection in the USA, while the jock will be at a higher risk for peer and same-sex parent rejection in the Far East.

Is there any proof for that culturetheory?
+ Are you saying there are 'risks' in every culture? What do you consider a culture with low/none getting-gay-risks? (example or an imagined culture)


The answer would be different for each individual.

So when preventing a pre-SSA boy from getting SSA you need to look carefully at every individual situation? I still wonder how you want to prevent a boy from getting gay ->For instance the nerd in America, you can't place the boy to the Far East because that's a better culture for him. You can talk to him about his feelings towards the athletic boys and such...but I don't think it'll help and doesn't it already happen? It's worth trying though.
And how about "high risk cultures". Are there cultures where there a significant more gays than in other cultures?


Ideally, we should have a culture where parents always give their kids attention and affirmation, and where peers are always accepting of each other even at the youngest ages. However, these expectations are unlikely to be fulfilled in any actual culture. This is why SSA still exists in just about every culture.

Yes, and why it's very impossible from preventing. :tongue:


You are probably the exception rather than the rule, but this has little bearing on the morality of same-sex behavior.

Good.

I was saying that all arguments from all sides are going to have political motivations. It would be nearly impossible to study this subject with no preconceptions, knowing how charged an issue it is in modern culture.

Political? Why political? What does politics have to do with it? Standards and values, ok...But politics, that would be a sad thing. :-(


I would have to say that someone who isn't sure whether they experience true SSA probably doesn't. Depending on age, they may still be in a pre-SSA stage, however.

Possibly...maybe probably..And why depending on age? Some people still doubt or begin to doubt once they've grown up.


Most of the people on the PeopleCanChange site seem to be people who are quite sure that they experience SSA. Some of them may also experience opposite-sex attraction, however.


Yeah, while I don't know how many people filled in the survey who were 100% sure of them having SSA. The testimonies seem quite sure indeed.


If we are talking about active homosexuals in particular, there is the issue that active homosexuals may be involved in a "defense mechanism" called "rationalization". It's when you feel guilty, and you try to explain away why what you did was OK. This may affect one's judgment.

I guess I still don't get the point. Maybe it's because here in the Netherlands, we have about none active guilty feeling homosexuals. :D. (not many religious people, guess that's why)


Such people would probably be trustworthy. We do have to look at the actual claim, though. I need to go pretty soon, but I will address this first.

Some statements are by nature "negative". That is, they deny a truth rather than accepting it.

Let's say someone mentions the town of Adair, Missouri. You want to find out whether this town is real. You then ask 100,000 tourists. 99,998 of them tell you that they have never heard of Adair, Missouri, and that it must be a fictional town written to be the subject of some book or movie or something. 20,000 of them have heard of Adair County in Missouri, but none of the 99,998 have heard of any town called Adair. Thus, we have the vast majority claiming that Adair, Missouri is a fictional place. They are asserting a negative: that Adair, Missouri does not exist.

However, you have two people with testimonies similar to the following:

"I live in Kirksville, Missouri. I frequently travel to Illinois on business. Every single time I go between Missouri and Illinois, I pass right through the town of Adair. They have a vacant cathedral called St. Mary's Church with a cemetery next to it. There is also an outhouse next to the church. The town is one of the smallest I have seen, so I'm not surprised no one has heard of it."

Both testimonies are very similar, and report identical landmarks and sites in the town. Would you believe that Adair, Missouri actually exists? Please come up with your reply before you check your sources (http://tinyurl.com/8moxs) to find out the truth. (I used TinyURL (http://tinyurl.com) so you couldn't tell whether I was linking to a factual site or to a site for a fiction work.)


I would believe it exist. Indeed, it would be no suprise most people would never have heard of it.
I suppose this was to explain about majority and minority?
How does this compare to homosexual people?

I hope you'll also answer my other questions/opinions I posted in that other post later.


I'm out of time tonight, so I'll respond to the rest of your post when I have a chance. [/QUOTE]

[Tux314]

Fact is: those symptoms never disappear completely. Or do they?

The data seems to indicate that complete disappearence is exceedingly rare. However, significant change seems to occur with some regularity among those who try the right techniques.

And why don't they disappear completely?

When your psychology has been molded a certain way for years, don't expect complete change. It might happen, but don't count on it.

Well, there you have a nice question: If homosexuality is totally genetical, then how can a homosexual change?

I don't think that SSA really could change if it is completely genetic. However, there is plenty of evidence against it being completely genetic.

Well..I'm still not sure about the changepart. I don't think a real change/transformation has taken place.

Here we get into the topic of epistemology, the study of knowing. One idea in epistemology is "falsifiability". If an idea is falsifiable, it can be disproven. The claim that homosexuals cannot truly change is in and of itself a falsifiable claim. All you would have to do to disprove it is to provide at least one example of a homosexual who truly changed. However, if you reject the example solely on the basis of the belief that homosexuals cannot change, your belief becomes "unfalsifiable" - not capable of being disproven. You also "beg the question" (assume your conclusion as a premise of your own argument) when you do this.

Some people believe that we should only hold falsifiable beliefs. This cannot be entirely true. After all, the belief that we should only hold falsifiable beliefs is not itself a falsifiable belief! The claims "the universe exists" and "I exist" are also not falsifiable. However, unfalsifiable beliefs can be on shaky ground in less foundational matters. I would say that an unfalsifiable belief is only acceptable when it is verifiable. Something is verifiable if it can be shown to be true. "The universe exists" and "I exist" are verifiable claims.

While we are on the topic of epistemology, I will explain what I meant with my Adair example. The assertion that Adair does not exist is a negative claim - one that simply denies the truth of another claim. The claim that change is impossible for homosexualis is also a negative claim. Epistemologically, negative claims can only be shown to be true if they can be deduced from positive claims which contradict the negative claims. For example, if the Mona Lisa is in the Louvre, the Mona Lisa is not in my basement. Situations like these are the only situations in which a negative claim is verifiable.

Negative claims cannot typically be deduced from a lack of experience. Adair cannot be shown not to exist just because 99,998 tourists have never heard of Adair. From an epistemological perspective, homosexuality cannot be shown to be unchangeable just because 99.999% of homosexuals have not changed. In fact, one positive claim can falsify the negative claim. One witness to the existence of Adair with sufficient credibility can prove that Adair exists. One ex-gay who experienced genuine change is sufficient proof that change is possible for at least that person.

Epistemologically, there are several ways a negative could still be reasonably be deduced (using the "no change" negative wherever applicable):

1.) Show that the existing testimonies of ex-gays are not credible testimonies. (For some reason apart from the alleged impossibility of change, unless this can be proven by other methods.) This cannot prove that homosexuality is unchangeable, but it can provide a strong basis for doubting that change is possible.
2.) Show that something inherent in homosexuality would make change impossible. For example, show that it is 100% genetically determined.
3.) For some negatives, sufficient knowledge can still provide disproof. If you want to know where you left your calculator, you might check the kitchen table. If you can see the entire kitchen table, you can deduce that the calculator is not on the kitchen table. However, no parallel exists for the ex-gay question. Even attempts at change cannot provide this knowledge, since there could be countless conceivable methods of change. Suppose someone tries to use willpower and prayer to change sexual orientation. This person does not change. Would this prove that change is impossible? Not at all, no more than someone trying to use Tylenol by itself to heal a broken bone would prove that broken bones could not be healed. Casts and proper medical treatment have been left out of the question in this latter case. Effective ex-gay techniques have been left out of the change question.

Unless one of these supports can be shown to apply to the ex-gay question, the claim that change is possible is verifiable (and probably verified), while the claim that change is impossible is not verifiable. If the claim of impossibility is also not falsifiable, it is epistemologically unfounded and there is no reason to believe it.

I guess it has more to do with strong will, openness to certain feelings, and the people you meet/things you experience, so if such a person goes back to his former thinking he'll sure get "gay" again. I mean: you can form your own mind to a certain level, whether you have gay genes or not.

Do you have a reason for believing that actual change must be impossible?

Having a gay gene or genes that stimulate homosexuality in some way doesn't mean you can't influence your own thinking.

This could certainly be one claim for change. However, does it match up with the actual testimonies of ex-gays? For some, certainly. However, others do report changes in the attraction feelings, not just their response.

Though...being totally gay, and turn to be able to sexually love women also...that can't be possible with a gay gene.

Certainly not, unless we are talking about behavior that isn't felt.

Then there should be some heterosexual gene also...:D or erm...a bisexual gene?

If we assume a gay gene, this would have to be the case. However, it's also possible that we just have a sexuality gene, and that environmental factors determine the orientation of the attractions.

Hum....this is difficult. The problem is: if I say we have a so called gay and a so called heterogene then how does one get a sexual orientation anyway? AH!, but a gene can be weak or strong right? Can't it be we're all bisexual in a way->we all have a heterogene and a homogene or other genetic factors or hormons which makes a person gay/bi/hetero according to the weakness/strongness (dominance and such) of those genes or hormons or whatever.

Either that, or the unspecifiedness I mentioned above. Other factors (face it, the twin study shows that environmental factors are part of it) would influence the development of the attractions in either case.

You can also see it in percents: my mom for instance is 95% hetero and 5% homosexual. But I guess you can only consider someone more gay or hetero after some years of experience. Before my moms twenties she was 100% hetero, but she did fall in love with a woman once. Before nobody knew. And after nobody knew whether she would fall in love with women more times. The actual balance can only be made after someones dead :P. I wouldn't say she turned from heterosexual to homosexual to heterosexual. (seems complicated) I also wouldn't exactly call her bisexual, while in the sense of the word she is. If I would say she's bisexual people would think she falls in love with women on regular basis, while it only happened once. I guess you can say everyone is bisexual but some are 99% homosexual and some are 99% heterosexual. It doesn't explain why MOST people are 99% heterosexual though.

There's also the Kinsey scale. 0 = hetero, 3 = completely bi, 6 = homo, and everything in between. Your mom might be a Kinsey 1.

I believe this theory already exists. You know any good arguments against it? :teeth:

Which theory?

Uh, no? But that also has to do with abstinence, openness and will. If a former smoker lights a new sigarette it tasts just as fine as before, so in that way he didn't change.

This doesn't in any way alter the fact that the cravings have been reduced. It might be true that an ex-gay would still be able to enjoy homosexual activity, but would this matter if the attractions were almost nill?

What do you mean with bad and wrong in this context?

I thought you were calling ex-gay claims bad and wrong.

We don't want them to be neutral do we?

I wouldn't say that. It's just that nobody is really neutral. Humans are not Vulcans (a reference to Star Trek). Even if they were neutral, we still have the ideas from epistemology about what they (or anyone else) can or cannot conceivably know.

It could, BUT there are very little ex-gays (0,0001%????) and MANY gays who say they can't change. I'm not saying the majority is always right, but in this case, people who think they know about their feelings, I suppose a majority is more reliable than a minority. Why not listen to both parties? Well, they both say different things which can't go together. It's hard not to choose for one side.

The epistemological argument would be why I would still hold that change is possible. In this case, only the minority is making a verifiable claim. Most refutations of the minority simply beg the question. Others, like the one on http://www.anythingbutstraight.com attempt to discredit ex-gay testimonies by demonstrating that ex-gays aren't perfect and don't always achieve 100% change. Newsflash: nobody is perfect.

Exactly, a research institution. Thank you for the link. I understand that people don't find it credible because of the presumptions on NARTH? Maybe a little less credible than an objective study I suppose, yes. But as long as they are open with their results and methods, they explain their manners of staying objective during their research, it can be trustworthy and worth reading. I do prefer an objective study, so I can see the different views and sides in one. Now I have to compare :P.

They do seem to use objective scientific methods. I have seen them accused of failing to distinguish between homo and bi, but I never did see which study the person was trying to refute...

What arguments do they use for the incredibility or NARTH?

They argue that NARTH disagrees with several major institutions like the American Psychological Association, and that thus NARTH must be wrong and the others right. I'm trying not to burn a straw man, but I really haven't seen much more than that.

And about that site: Dear, that's a forum. :teeth: On a forum you have many crazy illogical nonsense talking people.

That was me refuting an article published elsewhere. I was actually afraid to tackle it, lacking the necessary scholarly background. However, I found the claims quite silly. I haven't seen much since that's any better. The link to the other article is at the top of my post there.

What are you talking about?

STDs. They do seem to be more prevalent among the homosexual population than heterosexual, possibly due to a difference in the amount of promiscuity.

So not same rights. :ahem:

Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, SSA or not. SSA people are just less likely to want to.

Civil unions disconnected from the sexuality connotations would not be the end of the world.

Is it? What's your definition of wrong then? I think something immoral isn't necessarily wrong...so it's not the same.

Wrong = violating God's will.

True. I'm just saying that the bible speaks of homosexuality (in the opinion of most Christians) as filthy, perverse and such, while I consider those feelings genuine, sweet, real, not some illusion from the devil or something.

You are confusing SSA with SSB. (Attraction with behavior). The Bible says nothing about SSA.

Eh, none? It's more an effect of other peoples feelings (disgust for instance) towards them.

I was just pointing out that rejection might be a factor in the development of SSA.

Ah, so gay people should stay in celibacy for the rest of their lives and/or try to get heterosexual? I consider such a view loveless and unchristian.

I think letting someone do something clearly against God's will and probably unhealthy would be about as loveless as cold condemnation.

Everyone should have the possibility to find a partner. Unfortunately, it's isn't possible for everyone, because for instance pedosexuals can harm a child mentally.

I would say that similar reasons (harming themselves, in this case) would apply to homosexuality.

Homosexuals do not harm other people or themselves by practicing it.

This is an area where we disagree.

If one decides to do celibacy because he thinks it's good for him or herself, than we're also not the ones to judge whether that's good or wrong.

I would say that the Bible, not my moral intuition, is the guiding force.

Of course it also makes a difference whether you only consider homosexual actions as wrong or you also want to get laws or something against it and choose for others that way.

I don't expect nonChristians to follow Christian ethics on this one. This expectation would be unrealistic. People are responsible for their own choices.

But even if you only judge it wrong, you also judge other people.

You are confusing judging people with judging behavior. There's a difference between "what you are doing is wrong" and self-righteous "I'm morally superior to you". Everybody sins, including me.

Ok, I'll put it more clear: I love them for what they are and whether they do practice their homosexuality has no effect on my love for them.

That's an excellent position, one I would strive for myself. However, loving doesn't mean accepting behavior. Parents don't show any lack of love for their kids if they prohibit them from playing in the street and punish them when they do. Likewise with sinful behaviors.

Unconditional love is what Jesus showed.

No. I just didn't know what the feeling was and know it's more clear, though I still don't know what I feel for women really. At least I don't get sexually aroused by them, I only find some very beautiful, or admirable. And I also like to hug naked with girls, with no sex involved. I guess I'm still straight.

Doesn't really sound like SSA.

It's more about definition of homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and change.

I suppose.

Uhm, here my English fails. :blush: What's falsifiable? (no I don't have a dictionary)

See my lengthy section on epistemology above. (Though you probably caught that...)

Because they're a significant small group within the homosexual community. I could also ask you: why can't you believe that a homosexual is born that way as the majority of homosexuals are saying?

Epistemology again. How would a homosexual know whether the attraction was inborn or developed early? Even ex-gays say that the attraction felt "inborn" in some sense. I don't know how many people really have clear, accurate memories of childhood. If things developed pre-puberty, this would probably be identical in experience to something inborn.

Because there is a significant small group homosexuals who say they can change, right?

Their claim seems to be on more solid epistemological ground. Plus, they all pretty much say that:

1.) They experienced same-sex attraction. Nothing was changing.
2.) They tried the same ex-gay techniques, designed to deal with the environmental factors.
3.) At this moment in time, change began to occur.

The correlation between the use of ex-gay techniques and the change is hard to ignore. Ex-gay knowledge of childhood development of homosexuality may be on weak epistemological ground, but ex-gay experiences as adults would seem more knowable. Also, the commonality in factors cited by ex-gays supports the idea that the factors contributed.

I think I do.

You certainly do. "Commend" is an affirmative word with positive connotations. It basically means you are doing a good job.

Where did you get that from?

People on other forums, when they find out I have less than a full acceptance of homosexual behavior as acceptable.

In my opinion you're not a homophobic bigot at all. :tongue: No, I've seen some on muslimforums, they don't think, they don't listen, they only shout names and curse.

I prefer debating someone like you, who discusses things rather than making accusations. Thanks!

I'm not most people, in the contrary.

That's what's nice about this discussion.

I saw your other post, but this is all I've got time for tonight.

[Yamyam]

The data seems to indicate that complete disappearence is exceedingly rare. However, significant change seems to occur with some regularity among those who try the right techniques.


When your psychology has been molded a certain way for years, don't expect complete change. It might happen, but don't count on it.


I don't think that SSA really could change if it is completely genetic. However, there is plenty of evidence against it being completely genetic.


Here we get into the topic of epistemology, the study of knowing. One idea in epistemology is "falsifiability". If an idea is falsifiable, it can be disproven. The claim that homosexuals cannot truly change is in and of itself a falsifiable claim. All you would have to do to disprove it is to provide at least one example of a homosexual who truly changed. However, if you reject the example solely on the basis of the belief that homosexuals cannot change, your belief becomes "unfalsifiable" - not capable of being disproven. You also "beg the question" (assume your conclusion as a premise of your own argument) when you do this.

Some people believe that we should only hold falsifiable beliefs. This cannot be entirely true. After all, the belief that we should only hold falsifiable beliefs is not itself a falsifiable belief! The claims "the universe exists" and "I exist" are also not falsifiable. However, unfalsifiable beliefs can be on shaky ground in less foundational matters. I would say that an unfalsifiable belief is only acceptable when it is verifiable. Something is verifiable if it can be shown to be true.



I agree. (falsifiablity) I read something about that too.


"The universe exists" and "I exist" are verifiable claims.

How?


While we are on the topic of epistemology, I will explain what I meant with my Adair example. The assertion that Adair does not exist is a negative claim - one that simply denies the truth of another claim. The claim that change is impossible for homosexualis is also a negative claim. Epistemologically, negative claims can only be shown to be true if they can be deduced from positive claims which contradict the negative claims. For example, if the Mona Lisa is in the Louvre, the Mona Lisa is not in my basement. Situations like these are the only situations in which a negative claim is verifiable.

Negative claims cannot typically be deduced from a lack of experience. Adair cannot be shown not to exist just because 99,998 tourists have never heard of Adair. From an epistemological perspective, homosexuality cannot be shown to be unchangeable just because 99.999% of homosexuals have not changed. In fact, one positive claim can falsify the negative claim. One witness to the existence of Adair with sufficient credibility can prove that Adair exists. One ex-gay who experienced genuine change is sufficient proof that change is possible for at least that person.


Indeed. The problem is, you can visit Adair, or look it up somewhere, but you can't look into someones mind, 'cause you're stuck in yours. To proove one has changed seems a big task to me.


Epistemologically, there are several ways a negative could still be reasonably be deduced (using the "no change" negative wherever applicable):

1.) Show that the existing testimonies of ex-gays are not credible testimonies. (For some reason apart from the alleged impossibility of change, unless this can be proven by other methods.) This cannot prove that homosexuality is unchangeable, but it can provide a strong basis for doubting that change is possible.
2.) Show that something inherent in homosexuality would make change impossible. For example, show that it is 100% genetically determined.
3.) For some negatives, sufficient knowledge can still provide disproof. If you want to know where you left your calculator, you might check the kitchen table. If you can see the entire kitchen table, you can deduce that the calculator is not on the kitchen table. However, no parallel exists for the ex-gay question. Even attempts at change cannot provide this knowledge, since there could be countless conceivable methods of change. Suppose someone tries to use willpower and prayer to change sexual orientation. This person does not change. Would this prove that change is impossible? Not at all, no more than someone trying to use Tylenol by itself to heal a broken bone would prove that broken bones could not be healed. Casts and proper medical treatment have been left out of the question in this latter case. Effective ex-gay techniques have been left out of the change question.


Agreed.


Unless one of these supports can be shown to apply to the ex-gay question, the claim that change is possible is verifiable (and probably verified), while the claim that change is impossible is not verifiable. If the claim of impossibility is also not falsifiable, it is epistemologically unfounded and there is no reason to believe it.

Why then is the claim that change is possible verifiable? You can't say is verifiable because you can't proove it's impossible. Only when you proove the verifiability of the claim: "Gays can change" by falsify the claim: "Gays cannot change" the claim "Gays can change" is verifiable.


Do you have a reason for believing that actual change must be impossible?


I think it must be impossible because I think it's (at least mostly) genetical and such a strong feeling. Even when there are environmental factors that influence the development of homosexuality, I think the genes or hormones or whatever play such a big role in it, and the convincement one is gay has such a long history, it must be impossible to change.


This could certainly be one claim for change. However, does it match up with the actual testimonies of ex-gays? For some, certainly. However, others do report changes in the attraction feelings, not just their response.

Certainly not, unless we are talking about behavior that isn't felt.


What do you mean with the last part?


If we assume a gay gene, this would have to be the case. However, it's also possible that we just have a sexuality gene, and that environmental factors determine the orientation of the attractions.

Either that, or the unspecifiedness I mentioned above. Other factors (face it, the twin study shows that environmental factors are part of it) would influence the development of the attractions in either case.


Maybe enviromental factors while pregnancy so one is still born gay. :wink:


There's also the Kinsey scale. 0 = hetero, 3 = completely bi, 6 = homo, and everything in between. Your mom might be a Kinsey 1.

Which theory?


About all humans as being bisexual.


This doesn't in any way alter the fact that the cravings have been reduced. It might be true that an ex-gay would still be able to enjoy homosexual activity, but would this matter if the attractions were almost nill?


Yeah, reduced, but he didn't change into a heterosexual because of that. I'm
It would matter if you want to call the ex-gay hetero -> one who would still enjoy gay-sex isn't hetero.


I thought you were calling ex-gay claims bad and wrong.


I can't find the actual text because of all that quoteposts, so I leave it to that. (I would by the way only call the claims false, not 'bad')


I wouldn't say that. It's just that nobody is really neutral. Humans are not Vulcans (a reference to Star Trek). Even if they were neutral, we still have the ideas from epistemology about what they (or anyone else) can or cannot conceivably know.

The epistemological argument would be why I would still hold that change is possible. In this case, only the minority is making a verifiable claim. Most refutations of the minority simply beg the question. Others, like the one on http://www.anythingbutstraight.com attempt to discredit ex-gay testimonies by demonstrating that ex-gays aren't perfect and don't always achieve 100% change. Newsflash: nobody is perfect.


Hehe. I didn't know that URL, I'll look at it later.


They do seem to use objective scientific methods. I have seen them accused of failing to distinguish between homo and bi, but I never did see which study the person was trying to refute...

They argue that NARTH disagrees with several major institutions like the American Psychological Association, and that thus NARTH must be wrong and the others right. I'm trying not to burn a straw man, but I really haven't seen much more than that.


Hmm. Why don they disagree with that APA?


That was me refuting an article published elsewhere. I was actually afraid to tackle it, lacking the necessary scholarly background. However, I found the claims quite silly. I haven't seen much since that's any better. The link to the other article is at the top of my post there.

STDs. They do seem to be more prevalent among the homosexual population than heterosexual, possibly due to a difference in the amount of promiscuity.


Are STD's also more prevalent with homosexuals right now, now people know (more) about STD's? And with lesbians? And bisexuals? It maybe also has to do with the fact that men are 'less careful'. A woman can get pregnant and many use condoms mainly to protect them from pregnancy + they might just be more aware of the risks. It also has to do with the fact that many gay men have sex with strangers they meet in gaybars or on the internet or the woods or wherever, which is I think also because that way they can do it in secret, because having a homosexual relationship makes some have a lot of problems with family/friends/colleages etc. (though that's less of an issue in the Netherlands) People indirectly force them to act like that. Of course one can also choose to have no homosexual relationship (but who wants that, because it's damned by others?) or have a homosexual relationship in secret. But that's harder and more difficult than secretly go out once a week/month/whatever and have sex with a stranger you never see again.
And the anal sex of course holds more risks than vaginal sex. Not every gay practice its, but in general gays do it more than heterosexuals.


Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, SSA or not. SSA people are just less likely to want to.


:ahem: I don't consider that 'same rights'. Then everyone should have the right to marry same sex as well, in my opinion. But that's another issue. Fortunately in Holland homosexuals can marry. (oh I'm so happy with that!!)

Civil unions disconnected from the sexuality connotations would not be the end of the world.

Wrong = violating God's will.

Only if you look at it from the Christian view. Wrong in unreligious view has whole another meaning. (though more complicated)


You are confusing SSA with SSB. (Attraction with behavior). The Bible says nothing about SSA.


Apart from the fact that I think the bible doesn't even say anything about attraction with behavior, I don't understand WHY the bible doesn't say anything about SSA. Or at least not that much. Even when it SSA would be totally normal while the happenings of the bible took place I suppose God knows it's such an issue now and has been for centuries. Why then doesn't He make a clear statement in the bible? There are so many things spoken of in the bible, and that one thing is not, why, is it a 'test'? Let's see what people do? I don't understand.




I was just pointing out that rejection might be a factor in the development of SSA.

I think letting someone do something clearly against God's will and probably unhealthy would be about as loveless as cold condemnation.


What do you mean by 'letting someone do'? If you're convinced it's against God's will of course you must tell that and tell why to homosexuals. But you can't force them to stop with their gaylife or change them or make them believe it's true you're saying. Someone who hurts other people or themselve, like a murderer for instance, should be forced to stop, because it's dangerous and it hurts/harm other people (or himself). Homosexuals do not hurt anyone, they even get happy doing their 'thing'. You can warn them, but that's all you can and should do. Forcing them in anyway, or ignoring them, abandon them from a/the community or society is loveless. Being convinced of their wrong(s) and not tell them is loveless too, indeed.


I would say that similar reasons (harming themselves, in this case) would apply to homosexuality.


How? Because they could go to Hell? Get separated from God? You don't know about that jerickson, you can only believe it works like that. And because many homosexual people don't believe, it makes no sense to forbid them their activities or destimulate them all the time. It's their choice too you know. Leave it to them. You and them find out about it after life, but in THIS world it doesn't harm them a thing.



This is an area where we disagree.

I would say that the Bible, not my moral intuition, is the guiding force.

I don't expect nonChristians to follow Christian ethics on this one. This expectation would be unrealistic. People are responsible for their own choices.

You are confusing judging people with judging behavior. There's a difference between "what you are doing is wrong" and self-righteous "I'm morally superior to you". Everybody sins, including me.

That's an excellent position, one I would strive for myself. However, loving doesn't mean accepting behavior. Parents don't show any lack of love for their kids if they prohibit them from playing in the street and punish them when they do. Likewise with sinful behaviors.

Unconditional love is what Jesus showed.

Doesn't really sound like SSA.


That's why I call myself heterosexual. :wink:


I suppose.

See my lengthy section on epistemology above. (Though you probably caught that...)


I caught it. :wink:


Epistemology again. How would a homosexual know whether the attraction was inborn or developed early? Even ex-gays say that the attraction felt "inborn" in some sense. I don't know how many people really have clear, accurate memories of childhood. If things developed pre-puberty, this would probably be identical in experience to something inborn.


They can't know I guess, only feel or think it is.


Their claim seems to be on more solid epistemological ground. Plus, they all pretty much say that:

1.) They experienced same-sex attraction. Nothing was changing.
2.) They tried the same ex-gay techniques, designed to deal with the environmental factors.
3.) At this moment in time, change began to occur.

The correlation between the use of ex-gay techniques and the change is hard to ignore. Ex-gay knowledge of childhood development of homosexuality may be on weak epistemological ground, but ex-gay experiences as adults would seem more knowable. Also, the commonality in factors cited by ex-gays supports the idea that the factors contributed.

You certainly do. "Commend" is an affirmative word with positive connotations. It basically means you are doing a good job.

People on other forums, when they find out I have less than a full acceptance of homosexual behavior as acceptable.

I prefer debating someone like you, who discusses things rather than making accusations. Thanks!

That's what's nice about this discussion.

I saw your other post, but this is all I've got time for tonight.

See you later. :smile:

[Fr. Seraphim]

[QUOTE=jerickson314]For one, biodiversity in plants and animals can have no implications on human morality. How about species killing their own young? (Oh, I forgot. Liberals like abortion...)
--I am not talking about infanticide. That is a blatant choice, even in those creatures. I am talking about an inate inability to actually have a sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex. If there is a Chromosomal mandate that wires the brain a certain way, can you call acting on what God has Providentially allowed sinful? Can God be called the source of sin? Or is the Bible right when it says that God does not tempt anyone to sin?

In all the arguments I've seen on both sides regarding homosexuality, not once have I seen this claim. It might be more convincing if you could cite an actual source.
--Do a google search for an article called "Do Homosexuals need to be Cured?" the subtitle said something like "a response by a gay christian biologist." I cannot remember the author's name right off the bat.




If you can demonstrate that these people actually exist, this would certainly seem likely. However, I am pretty sure that this would be the case for only a tiny fraction of the homosexual population, even assuming the case of such inborn illness. Any argument you could make would have no effect on how we are to deal with homosexuality in general.
--I am not saying that they are all gays/lesbians. So far as we are able to document, they are 0.1% of the total world population. But, how many have actually been tested for these sorts of conditions? BTW, on what basis do you call it an illness? A challenge in life, maybe. Perhaps even in some way a blessing. But automatically an illness? By what standard?




The exact same answer I would give for every other homosexual in existence - the attraction is not to be condemned, only the behavior. The attraction would still be an illness, but I wouldn't condemn someone for SSA (same-sex attraction) any more than I would condemn someone for brain cancer or Down's Syndrome. SSA (same-sex attraction) is OK, SSB (same-sex behavior) is not.
--So you would condemn them to the mental anguish and self-loathing that comes from non-fulfillment of the urge (one they cannot control, BTW) to be in a committed relationship with a member of the same gender? And, no, all do not have a desire for a committed relationship, but I am not saying that promiscuity is right and I will not defend that in anyone.


Interesting. They would have to abide by whatever gender they surgically chose, probably. Perhaps these would fall into the same category as the "born eunuch" category - not destined for sexual behavior.
--Really? On what biblical grounds do you say they *need* any surgery at all? How is it you determine biblically that they are "born eunuchs"?


Here we're probably right on the money with the "born eunuch" category. These people aren't even physically capable of sexual behavior!
--Wrong! I know one such person who has an active sexual life. (And publically identifies as a woman.)

I'm familiar with that study. It tells us practically nothing about the origin of homosexuality. It only addresses the effects.
--And if those effects are outside their control and these people do not have a gift of celibacy, what do you tell them?

This study does not prove that they were born this way. I recognized that this conclusion was hogwash the first time I saw it. See here (http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=10640#10640). I later found a more professional response here (http://www.narth.com/docs/scrutinized.html).
--And how do you propose, scientifically, that they had brains develop this way?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people chose to experience SSA or that SSA is a sin. I'm just pointing out that this study proves nothing people purport it to prove.

If you want to study the actual scientific issues, you're going to have to learn a skill called "critical thinking".
--And a dose of your own medicine is in order for you.


< half sarcasm >If you want to be involved in science without learning critical thinking, become a science journalist. It seems that the journalists who write articles on scientific studies always come to conclusions not supported by the study.< / half sarcasm >
--Resorting to personal attacks? If not directly, you have implied such. Please stick to the facts - as you yourself seem to insist - or remain respectfully quiet. I do not indulge in such disrespect and ask that you do not, either.

In all seriousness, don't just accept a conclusion because some journalist claims it comes from the data. Look at the data yourself, and see if there's any way the data really supports the conclusion. There are many unfounded claims about conclusions in reports on controversial topics such as homosexuality and stem cell research.
--Let's see your own conclusions and show us that you have not used anyone else's data to support your own theories.


The study does not shed any light on whether homosexuality is chosen.
--Au Contraire, but it does add evidence. Nothing to date is conclusive, but it is one more piece of evidence that at least some of these people are born that way or are otherwise allowed to become this way aside from personal choice. (In which case it would be a Providential allowance; and if so but not accompanied with a gift of celibacy, then what do you tell them? Again, God is not a monster or a torturer, nor does He tempt to sin.)

However, it is reasonable to believe the SSA people who say that their SSA was not a choice. It's unfortunate so many people refuse to give the same benefit of the doubt to ex-gay testimonies.
--Follow-up research shows that almost all successful Ex-Gays were in fact bisexual to begin with. No one yet has shown a single ex-gay who was completely unattracted to the opposite gender to begin with changing. And all who have been followed up who are in this category have been shown that they can cope for a time, but virtually all maintain a vibrant homosexual fantasy life.


That guy needs a copy of Strong's Greek Lexicon.

2135 eunouchos yoo-noo'-khos

from eune (a bed) and 2192; a castrated person (such being employed in
Oriental bed-chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man; by
implication, a chamberlain (state-officer):--eunuch.
see GREEK for 2192

You might actually read the full article and double check his sources. He demonstrates from primary sources that there were married eunuchs who had children with women. Your rather restricted definition from Strong's didn't exist until the Fourth Century or so. If you had actually read that whole article you might know where our truncated modern definition comes from. For example, he demonstrates that there is no record of castrati being called eunuchs for at least a couple decades after the return from the Babylonian exile.


You might also want to read the introduction. In summary:

"I have a strong political agenda. I am gay and want an excuse to act on my desires. So, I know that I have to come to the conclusion that Matthew 19:12 is about gay people. In order to do this, I'm going to have to find support for the following statements."

I can't get past that part. Too biased, and reminds me of a similar but unsupported article I found elsewhere.
--Your insistence on scholarly work fails you here. The first rule of GOOD research is to state your biases up front and in full. You will see if you read the article, that he is overstated, but that he makes some essential and well made points that apply here. There is no such thing as an ubiased writer. The minute you read something, you become biased either for or against it, but you will be biased. Honesty and integrity are his strong points here.


Also note that the first source you come upon is pre-WWI. This isn't how you start a "well-researched" paper.
--Really? And how do you propose that this happen? Must good research only start with modern (or ancient) works? Can a pre-WW I piece present and opening to the topic? It seems that you stopped with the secondary sources he cited and didn't bother to go to the primary sources he cites throughout the work.

Looks as though if he's right, we have a Bible that contradicts itself. Turns up quite often when this happens that something needs more research! I've already seen the research on other passages, and have concluded that the Bible condemns SSB. His interpretation just doesn't hold up with a consistent Bible.
--The bible isn't contradicting itself. Your interpretation, based on English Bibles which all employ a sadly flawed Masoretic text, is where the error lies. Get a Septuagint Old Testament or even better an Aramaic Peshitta text and learn the language and then read it. You will be supprised at the differences.
You might be suprised to learn that when the Bible says that Jonathan and David wept on each other at their last meeting that "until David exceeded" in fact means until David got an erection. If you knew enough about ancient Middle Eastern Cultures, you would understand that Jonathan stripping himself of his armour and clothing was the act of submission that a wife gives her husband (taking into account that she has no armour). Jonathan placed himself into that position. Why else do you think Saul got so mad at the relationship and started blaming Jonathan's mother?

[Tux314]

[QUOTE=jerickson314]--I am not talking about infanticide. That is a blatant choice, even in those creatures.

As is SSB. (Not to be confused with SSA)

I am talking about an inate inability to actually have a sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

That's SSA, in its strongest form. Not a sin to begin with.

If there is a Chromosomal mandate that wires the brain a certain way, can you call acting on what God has Providentially allowed sinful?

Ever heard the words "original" and "sin" used together in the same sentence (e.g. "Original sin")? It seems not. Nice scholarship you got there!

Brains are also wired so that people experience attraction to those who aren't their spouses, even after they are married. Some people are also born with an aggressive desire to kill. See the futility of your argument?

Can God be called the source of sin?

God created people perfect, sin interacting with nature (in the normal way predicted by physics and chemistry) messed us up. This includes people born with Down's Syndrome, and this would include people born with SSA, were this actually supported by evidence. So no, God can't be called the source of temptation here.

Or is the Bible right when it says that God does not tempt anyone to sin?

You are asking a loaded question, a logical fallacy.

--Do a google search for an article called "Do Homosexuals need to be Cured?" the subtitle said something like "a response by a gay christian biologist." I cannot remember the author's name right off the bat.

I'm really busy. Notice how YamYam has two posts she is waiting for me to reply to?

--I am not saying that they are all gays/lesbians. So far as we are able to document, they are 0.1% of the total world population.

You may also want to cite an article from a well-known source, such as a scientific journal. Even the web site of the APA or the AMA would do.

But, how many have actually been tested for these sorts of conditions?

Wouldn't know.

BTW, on what basis do you call it an illness? A challenge in life, maybe. Perhaps even in some way a blessing.

The same could be said of many illnesses...

But automatically an illness? By what standard?

The standard biologically functional reproductive capability is effectively missing. Missing biological functionality typically constitutes an illness.

--So you would condemn them to the mental anguish and self-loathing that comes from non-fulfillment of the urge (one they cannot control, BTW) to be in a committed relationship with a member of the same gender?

SSB is biblically prohibited.

What about the urges people have for the spouses of others? Is it unethical to keep those from being fulfilled?

And, no, all do not have a desire for a committed relationship, but I am not saying that promiscuity is right and I will not defend that in anyone.

I would argue against any homosexual behavior to the same extent (not more) as heterosexual promiscuity.

--Really? On what biblical grounds do you say they *need* any surgery at all?

I didn't say that. I just thought that most do. The others are quite a sticky situation.

How is it you determine biblically that they are "born eunuchs"?

Context. Jesus is talking about not marrying. These might be people who can't marry and thus can't have sex.

--Wrong! I know one such person who has an active sexual life. (And publically identifies as a woman.)

You said they didn't have reproductive organs...

--And if those effects are outside their control and these people do not have a gift of celibacy, what do you tell them?

These could be the effects of SSB, in which case they are not outside of anyone's control at all. If they are just the effects of SSA, the person will just have to deal with them. Everybody is tempted.

Not being able to engage in heterosexual behavior constitutes the gift of celibacy.

--And how do you propose, scientifically, that they had brains develop this way?

Neural connections formed, creating an association. Just as your taste for your favorite food developed once you ate it. The brain changes with use.

--And a dose of your own medicine is in order for you.

Explain.

--Resorting to personal attacks? If not directly, you have implied such.

What do you think "sarcasm" means?

If anything, I was attacking science journalists. Not you.

Please stick to the facts - as you yourself seem to insist - or remain respectfully quiet.

I'll try, but I do get tired of making the same obvious refutations to different people...

I do not indulge in such disrespect and ask that you do not, either.

You said, "A dose of your own medicine is in order." Now you have more explaining to do!

--Let's see your own conclusions and show us that you have not used anyone else's data to support your own theories.

You're not getting what I'm saying. I didn't say that we should reject other people's data. I just said that we should see whether their data supports their conclusions.

--Au Contraire, but it does add evidence. Nothing to date is conclusive, but it is one more piece of evidence that at least some of these people are born that way or are otherwise allowed to become this way aside from personal choice.

I wouldn't say that personal choice is actually a factor. It seems to be a result of environmental factors beyond their control.

(In which case it would be a Providential allowance; and if so but not accompanied with a gift of celibacy, then what do you tell them?

Find me a 6-sided square, and I'll acknowledge that you can be incapable of heterosexual behavior but not have the gift of celibacy.

Again, God is not a monster or a torturer, nor does He tempt to sin.)

Do you deny that Down's Syndrome and Cystic Fibrosis are genetic? Again, you also seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of "original sin".

--Follow-up research shows that almost all successful Ex-Gays were in fact bisexual to begin with. No one yet has shown a single ex-gay who was completely unattracted to the opposite gender to begin with changing.

I'm not sure if this is necessarily true. Also, how many gays are completely unattracted to the opposite sex? Is it possible that nearly everyone can be construed as being somewhat bisexual?

And all who have been followed up who are in this category have been shown that they can cope for a time, but virtually all maintain a vibrant homosexual fantasy life.

Never heard this claim before. Have a source with more credentials than just being indexed by Google?

If you had actually read that whole article you might know where our truncated modern definition comes from.

I don't have the time. I'd rather refer you to someone with more scholarly background, anyway.

For example, he demonstrates that there is no record of castrati being called eunuchs for at least a couple decades after the return from the Babylonian exile.

He proved a negative? Contact Time! And the Chicago Trubine! And Newsweek!

--Your insistence on scholarly work fails you here. The first rule of GOOD research is to state your biases up front and in full. You will see if you read the article, that he is overstated, but that he makes some essential and well made points that apply here.

Certainly, it is good to state the biases. However, saying "I came to this conclusion first and then I did research later" doesn't tend to make things very trustworthy.

There is no such thing as an ubiased writer. The minute you read something, you become biased either for or against it, but you will be biased.

Couldn't agree more. I should have been more clear about what I meant.

--Really? And how do you propose that this happen? Must good research only start with modern (or ancient) works? Can a pre-WW I piece present and opening to the topic? It seems that you stopped with the secondary sources he cited and didn't bother to go to the primary sources he cites throughout the work.

Fair point. Due to lack of time, I'll see if someone else can help you with that.

--The bible isn't contradicting itself. Your interpretation, based on English Bibles which all employ a sadly flawed Masoretic text, is where the error lies. Get a Septuagint Old Testament or even better an Aramaic Peshitta text and learn the language and then read it. You will be supprised at the differences.

I've read about other scholarship, including scholarship that proposes alternate explanations of the passages.

You might be suprised to learn that when the Bible says that Jonathan and David wept on each other at their last meeting that "until David exceeded" in fact means until David got an erection. If you knew enough about ancient Middle Eastern Cultures, you would understand that Jonathan stripping himself of his armour and clothing was the act of submission that a wife gives her husband (taking into account that she has no armour). Jonathan placed himself into that position. Why else do you think Saul got so mad at the relationship and started blaming Jonathan's mother?

See here (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html).

[Tux314]

Interesting. Do you have a link to that study?

It's a fairly old study, so I don't know of any direct links. It is cited quite frequently, however. See here (http://www.google.com/search?q=twin+study+site%3Anarth.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) for the articles from NARTH that probably mention it.

Do genes determine every part and working/effect in a
body? (not sure)

With every part of a body, the answer seems to be "not completely". I am not sure what you mean by working/effect. Again, probably not completely genetic. However, all pre-birth factors are pretty much the same for a pair of identical twins.

Did they also look at the working of hormones in both the twins? Is the hormoneproduction exactly the same with twins throughout their lifes?

I don't know.

And did they also look at the brain of the twins, and whether particular parts were bigger/smaller?
(because there is some proof with brains and so..)

Again, don't know. The "proof with brains" is what would correctly be called the "LeVay study". Its findings can just as easily be explained as the effects of the homosexuality as it can the cause.

It just sounds to me they want to be as careful as possible with their pronouncements. I suppose they just don't know what it is and to keep everyone happy they speak in general. And if you read careful too, you notice it's not really their opinion they're saying; they talk about "most scientists", "numerous theories".

If you look at the rest of even this article, they do seem to try to defend SSB at every corner. I think they're just fessing up to the scientific data.

You know what I was just thinking? Those people who filled in that survey you sent me, and who mostly thought their homosexuality was an effect of all kinds of bad influences and some genetical stuff in their youth...I wonder if gaypeople who think they can't change had such a childhood too. Maybe the changingthing has to do with that ugly childhood, in stead of the homosexuality. Also because I know so many gay and bipeople who had a wonderful childhood...
It's speculative, I know...but maybe....

Possibly. However, there are still at least two possible explanations for those who had decent childhoods.

1.) Repressed memories - if the bad experiences were particularly traumatic, could they have been repressed?
2.) Other factors affecting gender identity. A young boy might be happy with a female identity, or vice versa. This could still cause SSA.

Sure. I know a young men who is 25 now and lives together with another men, they're a couple. He never was so conscious about him being gay, he did feel different but never really knew what it was, until age 19. Before he tried to have sex with women but didn't even get the thing up. At 19 he got the point, had a hard time accepting it, and he didn't dare to go into the gayscene or anything. A few years later he did and the first time he got into a gaybar he met the men he now lives together with and the same evening he had the greatest sex ever and felt like "coming home" as he puts it.[/quote]

I would generally say that having sex with someone the day you meet them would certainly indicate some sort of disorder.

He was frightened to tell it, but under pressure of the men he told his mom but she wasn't suprised at-all. She had always known, she said, since he was a little boy (about 4) he was more interested in dolls than cars, more interested in friendship with girls than with boys and of course he never fell in love with a girl..Ok anecdote?

Gender identity issues are commonly cited as factors causing SSA. Being born with female traits doesn't necessarily mean that SSA will develop, though it certainly increases the chances.

What do you mean by the secend sentence? Oh I see..
Well...abnormal...behavior or feelings that aren't homosexual, must have another reason, rather than just being "abnormal".

Anything that fits the definition of "abnormal" - anything deviating from normal traits. Traits that better fit the opposite sex, disorders like Asperger's Syndrome, etc. None of these guarantee SSA, but any could potentially lead to peer rejection and such, or to gender identity issues.

I suppose you can try to find out. If a boy is 6 and he falls in love with a classmate, than what else can it be than homo or bisexuality?

I wouldn't be too quick to associate something at age 6 with sexuality.

I already mentioned some signs above, but I'll ask some homosexuals, and try to find something in such a study I found but still haven't read. I let you know when I know more...cause now I'm just speculating.

The signs you have mentioned thus far are frequently cited as causes of SSA.

True. But it isn't so strange.
1. Sometimes it easier for an outsider to see what is going on. Why do you think we have psychiatrists?

Fair point.

2. If a person has some disorder, it can play up in youth, and of course the boy/girl feels different, know that something is wrong or somehow abnormal, but he/she can only know exactly WHAT is going on once they hear the diagnose, and recognise themselves in it. A homosexual boy is probably not very aware of what exactly is going on, he needs to read/hear something about it and find out: hey, I have that too!
3. Once you're in puberty you start thinking and asking questions to yourself. Before, you're not so busy with who exactly you are and what makes you the person you are.
These 3 things aren't as separated of course as I put them here, they have to do with eachother.
Right now you can see a tendence (at least here in Holland) where kids know more and more earlier in life that they are gay or bisexual or something else, because they hear about it sooner. They see it on telly, or hear their father curse and ask "What is a gay?" In former days people found out very late about theirselves in comparison with now. This confirms my "theory" about the disorder and the diagnose :P. Also because it's more an open subject now, parents tell/ask their children sooner about it. Children get information at school and from friends, so they get conscious about them being gay etc. more earlier.

Here we do have the issue of misdiagnosis. I have seen it cited (http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=7) that many people at the early high school age believe they might be gay, but the statistics are much lower for adults.

Maybe...but..why then are most (?) homosexual people, and why especially men so easy to recognise as a gay, and others not at all?

I don't know what this has to do with anything.

You mean, the homosexuals with less characteristic homosexual features are more gay because of their genes than because of environmental factors? Why not the opposite? (I'm not suggesting something, I really don't know why it is)

No. What I said was that bisexuals probably had weaker environmental factors than homosexuals, and thus also are able to experience opposite-sex attraction.

Very good. I know you're ok, but some people just make me sad...they don't even want homosexuals to give the chance to change, they just want to kill them. ;-(. It can make me very angry and sad that those people exist.

That is sad.

Oh, so many try to change but it doesn't "work"? You have any statistics showing that? (though it'll probably be also in those studys I found)

Not direct stats, no. Try this one (http://www.newdirection.ca/research/shidlo.htm) (though it's an ex-gay ministry reporting on a study someone else did).

You really think so? :O. I don't think you can compare car accidents to homosexuality. I'm very curious about the way you think that would work, how do you see that happening?

The comparison I was making is that although both are in theory preventable, both happen in practice.

Claimed by who? And if you're talking about a research: were heterosexuals also included? Because I don't think it makes sense to claim experimental sex during childhood is a catalyst to develop homosexuality when people didn't look at heterosexuals and their "experiments" as a child.

As I said, I would think that SSA must only develop when other factors are present. I can't remember the source.

Associating relief from pain with sexual feelings I understand, but what does that have to do with SSA? (in case of masturbation?)

Most seem to believe that the fantasies and mental imagery lead to this effect.

Is there any proof for that culturetheory?

Not specifically, just evidence for environmental factors having an effect.

+ Are you saying there are 'risks' in every culture? What do you consider a culture with low/none getting-gay-risks? (example or an imagined culture)

It would have to be imagined. As in, kids always accepting each other and parents always having good relationships with kids. Even then, some factors might have to be tuned to the gender identity issues. No actual culture is likely to be like this.

So when preventing a pre-SSA boy from getting SSA you need to look carefully at every individual situation? I still wonder how you want to prevent a boy from getting gay ->For instance the nerd in America, you can't place the boy to the Far East because that's a better culture for him. You can talk to him about his feelings towards the athletic boys and such...but I don't think it'll help and doesn't it already happen? It's worth trying though.

In practice, there are probably too many factors outside of any single person's control to ensure prevention. My point was that prevention would in theory be possible. Talking to people about their feelings and affirming their gender identity may help in practice. As a common expression goes, "mileage may vary".

And how about "high risk cultures". Are there cultures where there a significant more gays than in other cultures?

Perhaps. Ancient Rome might have been like this. I would have to do more research, something I don't really have time for right now.

Yes, and why it's very impossible from preventing. :tongue:

In practice, precisely.

Political? Why political? What does politics have to do with it? Standards and values, ok...But politics, that would be a sad thing. :-(

Technically not always politics. Many people like to lump standards and values in the "political" category. I was following this imprecise convention.

And why depending on age? Some people still doubt or begin to doubt once they've grown up.

Good point. It does seem, however, that most uncertainty occurs among the young.

I guess I still don't get the point. Maybe it's because here in the Netherlands, we have about none active guilty feeling homosexuals. :D. (not many religious people, guess that's why)

Have you asked about whether they feel guilty?

Also, bias can be created when someone wouldn't be as willing to listen to evidence that might make them feel guilty.

Out of time again.

[Yamyam]

It's a fairly old study, so I don't know of any direct links. It is cited quite frequently, however. See here (http://www.google.com/search?q=twin+study+site%3Anarth.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) for the articles from NARTH that probably mention it.

With every part of a body, the answer seems to be "not completely". I am not sure what you mean by working/effect. Again, probably not completely genetic. However, all pre-birth factors are pretty much the same for a pair of identical twins.

Oh yes, indeed, I forgot. Are there other twin studies of other research institutions which confirm the results of NARTH?
And...did NARTH also did research with the twins where one was gay and one wasn't to the environmental factors which led one not to be gay and one to be gay? Finding that out should, if you're right about the environmental factors, be less difficult than with a person who has no twin, because twins are pretty much grown up in the same environment.
And in general: I looked on the Peoplecanchange site a bit better, to the testimonies/stories of ex-gays. I noticed they all had a terrible childhood/youth and most of them didn't have monogamous gayrelationships but were obsessed with sex, were male prostitutes or/and had an overload of gaysex with strangers before they "changed". It seems more and more clear to me their nasty past has more to do with that change (and for many the fact that their actually bisexual->they tell about their attraction to girls in childhood too) than their homosexuality. I haven't read ONE story of a men or woman who had a happy childhood, and had NORMAL homosexual contacts/relationships, but were unhappy with their homosexuality and THEN changed. How about them? They don't exist, do they?
And how about those environmental factors which help a person develop homosexuality? There are so many homosexuals out there who had a HAPPY childhood, and have none of the reasons, presumed by NARTH and ex-gays, that make them develop homosexuality. What about them?


I don't know.


So probably not. ;-). Too bad, 'cause that might have to do with it also.


Again, don't know. The "proof with brains" is what would correctly be called the "LeVay study". Its findings can just as easily be explained as the effects of the homosexuality as it can the cause.


Yes, plus I found out it's not a reliable study. The men he researched were dead, so he couldn't know whether they were gay or not-> he just assumed they were because they died of HIV infection.
I wonder if anyone else did study on the brains and whether it matched with Le Vays.


If you look at the rest of even this article, they do seem to try to defend SSB at every corner. I think they're just fessing up to the scientific data.

Well, most medical/psychiatric/psychological organisations/assocations disagree with NARTH, disagree with calling SSB wrong, or SSA a mental disorder, and disagree with reparative therapy. -> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html
http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200001.pdf
(Some national medical assocation also disagreed, but I can't find the link right now.)
Why do you think they disagree if People Can Change and NARTH is right and they're so happy with their results?
[/QUOTE]


Possibly. However, there are still at least two possible explanations for those who had decent childhoods.

1.) Repressed memories - if the bad experiences were particularly traumatic, could they have been repressed?
2.) Other factors affecting gender identity. A young boy might be happy with a female identity, or vice versa. This could still cause SSA.


1. Ah. Repressed memories. :ahem: I don't know for sure, but I think most homosexuals had an ok childhood. Do they all have repressed memories? And if a repressed memory has such an influence that it makes you develop homosexuality, don't you think it has other influences also, to daily life, way of thinking, feelings etc.? I suppose it does. And in that case people who know about repressed memories and how they work can find out what it did in a persons life.
Are there studies confirming the link with repressed memories and homosexuality?
And why are there people with a repressed memory parallel to a homosexual but don't develop homosexuality?
How about people anyway, who always have been heterosexuals but have had the same reasons to develop homosexuality as those who did develop it?
2. Uh...you mean transsexuality or something? How do you mean that?


Sure. I know a young men who is 25 now and lives together with another men, they're a couple. He never was so conscious about him being gay, he did feel different but never really knew what it was, until age 19. Before he tried to have sex with women but didn't even get the thing up. At 19 he got the point, had a hard time accepting it, and he didn't dare to go into the gayscene or anything. A few years later he did and the first time he got into a gaybar he met the men he now lives together with and the same evening he had the greatest sex ever and felt like "coming home" as he puts it.

I would generally say that having sex with someone the day you meet them would certainly indicate some sort of disorder.
[/QUOTE]

Then about 90% of the adolescents and young adults in the Netherlands have a sort of disorder. One night stands are very popular among youngsters here. What sort of disorder should that be?
I'm not talking it right, it might be less moral to have sex right away, and I prefer not to do so, but I know many who like it.
The boy I was talking about just felt a great relief of all the time he was trying to be heterosexual, and for once, the first time, he felt so at home with that man, he felt it was right, so he did it. Since then he's together with that men, and they have a monogamous relationship, so I cannot see some sort of disorder, my dear.


Gender identity issues are commonly cited as factors causing SSA. Being born with female traits doesn't necessarily mean that SSA will develop, though it certainly increases the chances.


Do you know any heterosexual man with female traits?


Anything that fits the definition of "abnormal" - anything deviating from normal traits. Traits that better fit the opposite sex, disorders like Asperger's Syndrome, etc. None of these guarantee SSA, but any could potentially lead to peer rejection and such, or to gender identity issues.


It could.


I wouldn't be too quick to associate something at age 6 with sexuality.


How do you mean that? They can fall in love too. Of course their experience of sexuality is different, but there is sexuality for sure.


The signs you have mentioned thus far are frequently cited as causes of SSA.


I know. I mention them as characteristics of homosexuals. More as results than as causes.
By the way, I asked some homosexuals for signs, they told me this:
- since primary school looking at the boy's looks in stead of girls
- to avoid sextalk with the boys, no interest in their talking about girls
- a girl: I preferred to climb in trees, and play outside in stead of playing with dolls
- another girl: I hated dresses, and preferred techical toys, climbing trees to and football
- more sensitive
- liked shopping
- hanged with the girls
- played with girltoys (My little Pony)
- a girl: Played more with boys than with girls
- I was wild enthusiastic finding the make-up box of my aunt
- I wanted to be a fashion designer
But many also state that those things didn't make them gay and they know more girls/boys who did more boy/girl things and some couldn't think of any signs.
I'm also really interested in the Butch/Femme lesbian combination. Why are there Butches/lesbians who are more men than heterosexuals, and Femmes/lesbians who seem hetero from the outside, very much like normal womans. Why can you sometimes notice one is gay or lesbian so easy, and sometimes you can't? Why are many men more feminine and gay, and many women more masculine and lesbian, and others gay and lesbian without being more or less masculine/feminine?


Fair point.

Here we do have the issue of misdiagnosis. I have seen it cited (http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=7) that many people at the early high school age believe they might be gay, but the statistics are much lower for adults.


What do you mean with the issue of misdiagnosis?


I don't know what this has to do with anything.


It seems to me it's important to find out whether those "signs" are causes of homosexuality or effects. Whether they are genetical or environmental. And why it appears with one but it doesn't with the other.


No. What I said was that bisexuals probably had weaker environmental factors than homosexuals, and thus also are able to experience opposite-sex attraction.

That is sad.

Not direct stats, no. Try this one (http://www.newdirection.ca/research/shidlo.htm) (though it's an ex-gay ministry reporting on a study someone else did).


I'm afraid statistics of changes being made aren't very reliable as other studies made clear:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html
http://www.iglss.org/media/files/Angles_41.pdf

And another about the frontmen of popular ex-gay organisations:
http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/pietrzyk/pietrzyk1.html


The comparison I was making is that although both are in theory preventable, both happen in practice.

As I said, I would think that SSA must only develop when other factors are present. I can't remember the source.

I suppose if experimental sex during childhood of heterosexuals should at least have SOME effect then.


Most seem to believe that the fantasies and mental imagery lead to this effect.


I don't understand. Boys who masturbate and associate it with relief from pain fantasy about boys/men? If so, I suppose there just homosexual and that's why they fantasy about boys.


Not specifically, just evidence for environmental factors having an effect.


It would have to be imagined. As in, kids always accepting each other and parents always having good relationships with kids. Even then, some factors might have to be tuned to the gender identity issues. No actual culture is likely to be like this.

In practice, there are probably too many factors outside of any single person's control to ensure prevention. My point was that prevention would in theory be possible. Talking to people about their feelings and affirming their gender identity may help in practice. As a common expression goes, "mileage may vary".

Perhaps. Ancient Rome might have been like this. I would have to do more research, something I don't really have time for right now.

In practice, precisely.

Technically not always politics. Many people like to lump standards and values in the "political" category. I was following this imprecise convention.

Good point. It does seem, however, that most uncertainty occurs among the young.

Have you asked about whether they feel guilty?

Also, bias can be created when someone wouldn't be as willing to listen to evidence that might make them feel guilty.

Out of time again.

I didn't but I know they are because those I'm talking about have accepted their homosexuality and now openly practice their homosexual behavior and are happy with it.
It seems it pisses them of more than make them feel guilty because it suggests causes in childhood they can't think of. And many presume people who come with such evidence consider their behavoir as wrong while they feel and think it's ok.

[Tux314]

How?

(Your quote referring to how statements like "the universe exists" can be verifiable). - Experience can show these things are true. Just as experience can make change verifiable for an ex-gay. The question was about which group we should believe, one claiming that change was possible and one claiming that change was impossible. The group claiming possibilty would know this verifiably, whereas the group claiming impossibility would have no epistemic way to know.

Indeed. The problem is, you can visit Adair, or look it up somewhere,

I've done both. Even researched it for a while at the Adair County Historical Society in Kirksville. We used to have relatives in Kirksville. Long story, though... Sufficient to say my brothers and I are insane :wink: .

but you can't look into someones mind, 'cause you're stuck in yours. To proove one has changed seems a big task to me.

It may not be verifiable to you, but it is verifiable to ex-gays if they exist. I would thus consider the ex-gays a more viable source, unless there is some specific reason to discredit them.

Why then is the claim that change is possible verifiable? You can't say is verifiable because you can't proove it's impossible. Only when you proove the verifiability of the claim: "Gays can change" by falsify the claim: "Gays cannot change" the claim "Gays can change" is verifiable.

Correct, but I was pointing out that "gays can change" is verifiable for ex-gays.

I think it must be impossible because I think it's (at least mostly) genetical

According to here (http://www.narth.com/docs/dejavu.html), it is less genetic than being overweight!

and such a strong feeling.

People can get over phobias, can't they? Would that actually be any weaker?

Even when there are environmental factors that influence the development of homosexuality, I think the genes or hormones or whatever play such a big role in it, and the convincement one is gay has such a long history, it must be impossible to change.

I would disagree, but would still believe ex-gay testimony that change was often incredibly difficult.

What do you mean with the last part?

It is at least theoretically possible for someone who is gay to engage in heterosexual behavior, even though he or she probably wouldn't like it.

Maybe enviromental factors while pregnancy so one is still born gay. :wink:

See here (http://www.narth.com/docs/psychobiology.html).

About all humans as being bisexual.

Could be true if you use a sufficiently broad definition of "bisexual".

Yeah, reduced, but he didn't change into a heterosexual because of that. I'm
It would matter if you want to call the ex-gay hetero -> one who would still enjoy gay-sex isn't hetero.

What does it matter if the person is truly hetero, if he or she can live a fulfilling heterosexual lifestyle?

Hmm. Why don they disagree with that APA?

"don" is an interesting typo. Did you mean "do" or "don't"? They do disagree with the APA. The APA believes that homosexuality is healthy and unchangeable.

Are STD's also more prevalent with homosexuals right now, now people know (more) about STD's? And with lesbians? And bisexuals? It maybe also has to do with the fact that men are 'less careful'. A woman can get pregnant and many use condoms mainly to protect them from pregnancy + they might just be more aware of the risks. It also has to do with the fact that many gay men have sex with strangers they meet in gaybars or on the internet or the woods or wherever, which is I think also because that way they can do it in secret, because having a homosexual relationship makes some have a lot of problems with family/friends/colleages etc. (though that's less of an issue in the Netherlands) People indirectly force them to act like that. Of course one can also choose to have no homosexual relationship (but who wants that, because it's damned by others?) or have a homosexual relationship in secret. But that's harder and more difficult than secretly go out once a week/month/whatever and have sex with a stranger you never see again.
And the anal sex of course holds more risks than vaginal sex. Not every gay practice its, but in general gays do it more than heterosexuals.

I don't know the stats. I have seen it cited that the disease transmission rates are much higher in homosexuals, though. Possibly in part due to factors like those you mentioned.

Only if you look at it from the Christian view. Wrong in unreligious view has whole another meaning. (though more complicated)

Well, yeah. You were asking about what I considered them. I happen to be Christian. :wink:

Apart from the fact that I think the bible doesn't even say anything about attraction with behavior, I don't understand WHY the bible doesn't say anything about SSA. Or at least not that much. Even when it SSA would be totally normal while the happenings of the bible took place I suppose God knows it's such an issue now and has been for centuries. Why then doesn't He make a clear statement in the bible? There are so many things spoken of in the bible, and that one thing is not, why, is it a 'test'? Let's see what people do? I don't understand.

It is important to remember that the Bible was primarily written for BC Jews (the Old Testament) as well as first and second century Christians (the New Testament). The big question is whether SSA would be an issue in these cultures. My understanding from reading people like J.P. Holding (who happens to be on this forum) is that something called the "Semetic Totality Concept" means that feelings wouldn't mean much to those cultures if they weren't acted on. You also don't see feelings mentioned much in OT law. It might be interesting for someone to see if SSA is mentioned in any other writings from similar historical periods and cultures.

What do you mean by 'letting someone do'? If you're convinced it's against God's will of course you must tell that and tell why to homosexuals.

That's exactly what I meant.

But you can't force them to stop with their gaylife or change them or make them believe it's true you're saying. Someone who hurts other people or themselve, like a murderer for instance, should be forced to stop, because it's dangerous and it hurts/harm other people (or himself).

Homosexuals may be hurting themselves, but I wouldn't use force.

Homosexuals do not hurt anyone, they even get happy doing their 'thing'. You can warn them, but that's all you can and should do. Forcing them in anyway, or ignoring them, abandon them from a/the community or society is loveless. Being convinced of their wrong(s) and not tell them is loveless too, indeed.

I generally agree with this, with the reservation that they may still be hurting themselves.

How? Because they could go to Hell? Get separated from God?

No. That's "salvation by works". I believe in "salvation by grace". You can see a more detailed exegesis here (http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html). It doesn't talk about homosexuality, but it does talk about how salvation works. It also does describe the Semetic Totality Concept mentioned above.

In general, I would say that homosexuals can be saved the same way as anyone else, even if they still struggle with homsexual sin. Homosexuality is no worse than any other sin from this perspective.

You don't know about that jerickson, you can only believe it works like that. And because many homosexual people don't believe, it makes no sense to forbid them their activities or destimulate them all the time. It's their choice too you know. Leave it to them. You and them find out about it after life, but in THIS world it doesn't harm them a thing.

People are responsible for their own choices, yes. However, the harm I was referring to was more like the medical (http://www.narth.com/menus/medical.html) and psychological (http://www.narth.com/docs/recent.html) issues.

They can't know I guess, only feel or think it is.

See, ex-gays can be in a position to know. This is why their testimonies hold more water, unless they can be discredited by other means.

[Tux314]

Oh yes, indeed, I forgot. Are there other twin studies of other research institutions which confirm the results of NARTH?
And...did NARTH also did research with the twins where one was gay and one wasn't to the environmental factors which led one not to be gay and one to be gay?

NARTH had nothing to do with the twin study. They just like to cite it. From what I've picked up, there have been several twin studies done over the years by various institutions. I have seen results cited (http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=27) with as low as 20% correspondence. You may have to get the cited journal from a university library or something if you want to read up on that study.

Finding that out should, if you're right about the environmental factors, be less difficult than with a person who has no twin, because twins are pretty much grown up in the same environment.

This does raise the question of whether even the 20%-60% (depending on the study) is really all due to genes at all, or whether it could be at least partially due to environmental factors.

I haven't seen any twin studies comparing environmental factors. These would certainly make for an interesting if either of us comes upon one.

And in general: I looked on the Peoplecanchange site a bit better, to the testimonies/stories of ex-gays. I noticed they all had a terrible childhood/youth and most of them didn't have monogamous gayrelationships but were obsessed with sex, were male prostitutes or/and had an overload of gaysex with strangers before they "changed". It seems more and more clear to me their nasty past has more to do with that change (and for many the fact that their actually bisexual->they tell about their attraction to girls in childhood too) than their homosexuality.

If their SSA was still reduced, the SSA was reduced regardless of whether this was from correcting a bad past or not.

I haven't read ONE story of a men or woman who had a happy childhood, and had NORMAL homosexual contacts/relationships, but were unhappy with their homosexuality and THEN changed. How about them? They don't exist, do they?

What do you define as "normal"? You said it was normal in your culture to have one-night stands...

If you mean monogamy, can you give me at least one example of a monogamous homosexual? They seem to be exceedingly rare. People often argue that someone who makes my argument is stereotyping, but why not just provide an example?

And how about those environmental factors which help a person develop homosexuality? There are so many homosexuals out there who had a HAPPY childhood, and have none of the reasons, presumed by NARTH and ex-gays, that make them develop homosexuality. What about them?

Know of any? Even GID (gender identity disorder) is cited as a cause...

Yes, plus I found out it's not a reliable study. The men he researched were dead, so he couldn't know whether they were gay or not-> he just assumed they were because they died of HIV infection.

Yeah.

I wonder if anyone else did study on the brains and whether it matched with Le Vays.

Not to my knowledge.

Well, most medical/psychiatric/psychological organisations/assocations disagree with NARTH, disagree with calling SSB wrong, or SSA a mental disorder, and disagree with reparative therapy. -> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html
http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200001.pdf
(Some national medical assocation also disagreed, but I can't find the link right now.)

Yeah, I found out about those quite a long time ago. That's the standard argument against the credibility of NARTH, as I cited earlier.

Why do you think they disagree if People Can Change and NARTH is right and they're so happy with their results?

Could be political/moral presuppositions, or listening too much to the unverifiable claims of homosexuals, or that reparative therapy and such are not universally suitable or effective for all homosexuals. I haven't seen many actual reasons from any of those organizations.

1. Ah. Repressed memories. :ahem: I don't know for sure, but I think most homosexuals had an ok childhood. Do they all have repressed memories? And if a repressed memory has such an influence that it makes you develop homosexuality, don't you think it has other influences also, to daily life, way of thinking, feelings etc.? I suppose it does. And in that case people who know about repressed memories and how they work can find out what it did in a persons life.

I didn't say that this was always the case. I just said it was one potential cause. I'm sure repressed memories would have other repercussions, as well.

Are there studies confirming the link with repressed memories and homosexuality?

Not that I know of. Just that both might be influenced by trauma.

And why are there people with a repressed memory parallel to a homosexual but don't develop homosexuality?
How about people anyway, who always have been heterosexuals but have had the same reasons to develop homosexuality as those who did develop it?

That would be because SSA is a complex phenomenon that cannot be narrowed down to any single cause, be it genetics or certain environmental factors. Like most other things in psychology, it's probably an interaction of many different phenomena.

It's also possible that those with parallel factors may have had non-parallel factors which countered the effects.

2. Uh...you mean transsexuality or something? How do you mean that?

Stuff like gender identity disorder. For example:

- since primary school looking at the boy's looks in stead of girls
- to avoid sextalk with the boys, no interest in their talking about girls
- a girl: I preferred to climb in trees, and play outside in stead of playing with dolls
- another girl: I hated dresses, and preferred techical toys, climbing trees to and football
- more sensitive
- liked shopping
- hanged with the girls
- played with girltoys (My little Pony)
- a girl: Played more with boys than with girls
- I was wild enthusiastic finding the make-up box of my aunt
- I wanted to be a fashion designer

I would generally say that having sex with someone the day you meet them would certainly indicate some sort of disorder.
[/QUOTE]

PeopleCanChange explains this as "opposites attract". This is where culture might have an effect. If it were masculine to be sensitive and feminine to play football, these might be the straight people.

Then about 90% of the adolescents and young adults in the Netherlands have a sort of disorder. One night stands are very popular among youngsters here. What sort of disorder should that be?
I'm not talking it right, it might be less moral to have sex right away, and I prefer not to do so, but I know many who like it.

This would still be a disorder, probably caused by the over-liberalization of Europe. Don't know of a direct name for it, though.

The boy I was talking about just felt a great relief of all the time he was trying to be heterosexual, and for once, the first time, he felt so at home with that man, he felt it was right, so he did it.

Feelings can be deceiving.

Since then he's together with that men, and they have a monogamous relationship, so I cannot see some sort of disorder, my dear.

How monogamous? As I said, monogamous homosexuals seem to be the exception rather than the rule (not that there aren't promiscuous heterosexuals). I would also see the SSB as disorderly.

Do you know any heterosexual man with female traits?

Depends on how broadly or how few traits could meet your requirements.

It could.

How do you mean that? They can fall in love too. Of course their experience of sexuality is different, but there is sexuality for sure.

I wouldn't really say that we have true indicative sexuality until puberty hits...

I know. I mention them as characteristics of homosexuals. More as results than as causes.

But why couldn't they be causes? We are dealing with a complex phenomenon here.

By the way, I asked some homosexuals for signs, they told me this:
- since primary school looking at the boy's looks in stead of girls

That first one shows quite a lack of being able to think outside the box. It is normal to compare one's own development to that of other guys, and most sexual attractions don't really hit until around puberty.

- to avoid sextalk with the boys, no interest in their talking about girls
- a girl: I preferred to climb in trees, and play outside in stead of playing with dolls
- another girl: I hated dresses, and preferred techical toys, climbing trees to and football
- more sensitive
- liked shopping
- hanged with the girls
- played with girltoys (My little Pony)
- a girl: Played more with boys than with girls
- I was wild enthusiastic finding the make-up box of my aunt
- I wanted to be a fashion designer

See above.

But many also state that those things didn't make them gay and they know more girls/boys who did more boy/girl things and some couldn't think of any signs.

Epistemologically, how would they know?

I'm also really interested in the Butch/Femme lesbian combination. Why are there Butches/lesbians who are more men than heterosexuals, and Femmes/lesbians who seem hetero from the outside, very much like normal womans. Why can you sometimes notice one is gay or lesbian so easy, and sometimes you can't? Why are many men more feminine and gay, and many women more masculine and lesbian, and others gay and lesbian without being more or less masculine/feminine?

Probably because the phenomenon is complicated and the factors are varied from person to person.

What do you mean with the issue of misdiagnosis?

People may not have really developed SSA at the point they label themselves. Self-labeling is also cited, though I can't find the source right now.

It seems to me it's important to find out whether those "signs" are causes of homosexuality or effects.

Yeah.

Whether they are genetical or environmental.

Probably a mixture of both, like most everything else.

And why it appears with one but it doesn't with the other.

To what do you refer here?

I'm afraid statistics of changes being made aren't very reliable as other studies made clear:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html
http://www.iglss.org/media/files/Angles_41.pdf

And another about the frontmen of popular ex-gay organisations:
http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/pietrzyk/pietrzyk1.html

I don't have time for a detailed read now, but I've seen lots of articles like that before. (If I recall the first one from when I read it before, there were many assertions and very little research.) Certainly, not everyone who tries to change succeeds.

I suppose if experimental sex during childhood of heterosexuals should at least have SOME effect then.

Probably.

I don't understand. Boys who masturbate and associate it with relief from pain fantasy about boys/men? If so, I suppose there just homosexual and that's why they fantasy about boys.

Many say it happens after they have been rejected, or that they fantasize about someone who has gone against the grain and accepted them. Not necessarily homosexually caused.

I didn't but I know they are because those I'm talking about have accepted their homosexuality and now openly practice their homosexual behavior and are happy with it.

That's another thing I would consider sad. It doesn't look so healthy.

It seems it pisses them of more than make them feel guilty because it suggests causes in childhood they can't think of.

Not everyone can psychoanalyze themselves.

And many presume people who come with such evidence consider their behavoir as wrong while they feel and think it's ok.

As I said, feelings can be deceiving. "OK" does have to be defined from somewhere. I won't hide the fact that I define this from Christianity.

[Yamyam]

(Your quote referring to how statements like "the universe exists" can be verifiable). - Experience can show these things are true. Just as experience can make change verifiable for an ex-gay. The question was about which group we should believe, one claiming that change was possible and one claiming that change was impossible. The group claiming possibilty would know this verifiably, whereas the group claiming impossibility would have no epistemic way to know.

Yeah, but I'm afraid it's hard/maybe even impossible to verify that claim of ex-gays. They might believe they changed, so for them it's verifiable, but that isn't a proof, because some people also believe they're rabbits, which isn't true. How do you want to proof they really changed into heterosexuals? Some GOOD research should be done, also in what way they HAD feelings towards men and women before the "change" (which I don't see in any research), what could be the cause of those feelings, in what way their feelings towards men and women changed, what could be the cause of the change, and how much those new feelings changed their lifes and this in comparison with homosexuals who tried to change but didn't change. And all that done by an objective research institute. Right now they're are too many difficulties against the research done. I don't see how you want to verify they changed.


I've done both. Even researched it for a while at the Adair County Historical Society in Kirksville. We used to have relatives in Kirksville. Long story, though... Sufficient to say my brothers and I are insane :wink: .

Very good. :wink:


It may not be verifiable to you, but it is verifiable to ex-gays if they exist. I would thus consider the ex-gays a more viable source, unless there is some specific reason to discredit them.


As I already mentioned, verifiability to ex-gays only isn't a proof or verifiability for us all. I also believed I was bisexual for 5 years, and now I believe I never was->some idiot who thought the same thing might believe he has changed. My specific reason to discredit them, or not believe them just from their words, is that none is representative for an usual gay, they all had terrible or/and sex obsessed lifes before their change, I don't think it makes things more credible. PLUS feelings are difficult to put in words, it should be verified in the first place if their feelings to women or men were as homo or heterosexual as with others. I would thus consider ex-gays aren't just a viable source because they-say-so. There are many people in the world who believe they're God, and there's reason to not believe them also.



Correct, but I was pointing out that "gays can change" is verifiable for ex-gays.


Sure it is for them.


According to here (http://www.narth.com/docs/dejavu.html), it is less genetic than being overweight!

No. According to the article that 50-60% scale isn't reliable
and they explain why it isn't. I by the way wonder what the critisicm about that twin study consists of. Isn't that twin study the study you mentioned earlier as reliable?
I by the way wonder how that APA found out these genetic/not genetic percents. I suppose they asked mom, dad and child how they felt about death penalties and then made the conclusion: Ah mom found death penalties wrong for about 80% and dad about 60%, child about 50%, let's do a simple mathematics and we're done. My point is: because mom and dad feels a certain way about certain subjects doesn't mean it's genetic. It's even more possibly due to education if the child feels the same way about death penalties than mom. I think feelings towards abortion, death penalties, casual sex, equalities, and reading books are more due to environmental factors. Rollercoasters and humility might also have more physical aspects, genetic and environmental.
About weight: I think 20-40% difference in weight might be the effort still worth it. One who has a father and mother from about 190 kg (you probably count in pounds->I suppose pounds are about the double?) doesn't mean it's genetic to weigh that much. It's probably genetic to weigh more than usual, gain weight easily, and have a lot of hunger (?) but it isn't to weigh 190 kg's, because you're parents do. They achieved that weight by environmental factors more than genetic factors. I'm sure a baby doesn't weigh as much in proportion with adults who weigh 190 kg.People can get over phobias, can't they? Would that actually be any weaker? Thus losing weight is worth trying, because in this case it might help about 60% 'cause the overdose kg's isn't genetic.


People can get over phobias, can't they? Would that actually be any weaker?


Yes, I did so myself. :teeth: Ok, you're right about the strong feeling argument. (it might have anyway more to do with my thought that's why it HAS to be genetic) I now begin to wonder....why do people have the intuition/feeling that homosexuality MUST be genetic because it's such a strong feeling, and why not with phobias? I guess because homosexuality is something that's there since you were born (in my opinion, and in some way in you're opinion also) and a phobia is OBVIOUSLY something you develop within a period of time. Hmm..



I would disagree, but would still believe ex-gay testimony that change was often incredibly difficult.

It is at least theoretically possible for someone who is gay to engage in heterosexual behavior, even though he or she probably wouldn't like it.


Yes, I found that out too. I wonder how they get their thing up. Must be difficult?


See here (http://www.narth.com/docs/psychobiology.html).


You already prooved I was wrong, because with twins they get the same hormons in the womb.
But in this article they write:
There is recently published material (after Born Gay) in which the entire human genome was scanned, and they could find no significant associations with SSA. (Mustanski, et al, 2005, including Dean Hamer as author). Perhaps closer tests will eventually show something, but at present the gene hypothesis is not supported, and any genetic contribution should be nearer 0% than 50 to 100%. Hamer's own previous work suggesting an SSA-gene association is not supported.
How can that be true, while that twin study prooved being gay was about 50% due to genetic factors? (though they can't find the genes) Or wasn't that twin study reliable, and why not?
It does bother my that they now use the twin study as a proof, while in the article in the other link you sent me they mentioned it as a study which raised questions/wasn't so reliable as people thought.
They also mention the classic book by Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith (1981), but don't mention that the bulk of that work was Path Analysis. Van Wyk and Geist (1984) who got similar results, pointed out that both sets of Path Analysis studies showed family effects were definitely involved to a significant degree, by all usual statistical criteria, but the Born Gay authors ignored this.
I'm sorry, what's a Path Analysis?
That Spitzer study, you know a link to that?
The authors also think that many of those who approach therapists for help are "coerced," but have obviously not encountered the surveys which reveal that clients' motives are primarily rejection of the gay life style. They are not coerced.
I think so too.
Therapy methods are described as "...draconian - no evidence that they work." They do not cite examples, nor can they. This betrays a surprising lack of knowledge about what is going on currently in therapy.
I can cite examples, but they are from the past, and they probably don't use those methods anymore.


Could be true if you use a sufficiently broad definition of "bisexual".

In this case, yes. I do not mean the usual definition of bisexual: feeling sexual attraction to women and men, but more as a ground sexuality: one can lean towards the heterosexual side and one can lean to the homosexual side. So a person who is 100% heterosexual (I wonder if that exists) leans 50% to the right on the bisexuality scale.


What does it matter if the person is truly hetero, if he or she can live a fulfilling heterosexual lifestyle?

Then it doesn't matters, but I don't know any ex-gay who is totally hetero. Some might be for 60% in stead of 40%. :teeth: Than they're still not heterosexual. By the way: I can also make my sexual feelings towards MEN go mostly away, by thinking them away/suppressing them/focus on other things/go into celibacy. That doesn't make me gay or asexual. It's a change of focus mostly. Finding the opposite or same sex sexually attractive is another thing though. But if everyone would be bisexual that's also a change of focus. What if one is 98% homosexual? How can one then change into 60% heterosexual, as they say? I have no clue. That's why I think those ex-gays weren't 98% homosexual, but probably more around 60% and they focussed so much it looked like 90%. Even when they would be 90% homosexual and they would want to change, and change their focus, it's very possible they once meet a beautiful woman, fall in love and marry her. Once they're married they're even less focussed on men, and the one time they feel attracted to men it's not so very hard to suppress it or don't take notice of it. With 10% heterosexuality you can still fall very in love with a woman and have no interest in anyone else anymore. You just change your perspective, broaden it and make it smaller at the sime time. That doesn't say too much about genetics of environment...A person who is 90% gay and 10% hetero but falls in love with a women is still 90% gay and 10% hetero, right? The only problem is it's hard to find out how much percent you're gay or homosexual, 'cause you don't know what will happen next in your life. It's a snapshot. That means it looks like someone can change from 50% homosexual into 90% homosexual, for instance, because he can only calculate percents from his past life. Even at the end of his life it's hard to find the exact percents, because of the change of focus. For someone who never cared about falling in love with women or men it might be more easy to find the right percents, because he never tried to change focus and probably changed it less then. BUT the percents are inborn.
Hmm, I like my theory. :lol:
My mom is unfortunately in the definition of the word heterosexual and bisexual as most people see/use it, still bisexual, allthough she fell in love with a women only once. On my "scale" of bisexuality she would be mostly heterosexual.


"don" is an interesting typo. Did you mean "do" or "don't"? They do disagree with the APA. The APA believes that homosexuality is healthy and unchangeable.


Haha. I meant "do".


I don't know the stats. I have seen it cited that the disease transmission rates are much higher in homosexuals, though. Possibly in part due to factors like those you mentioned.

Well, yeah. You were asking about what I considered them. I happen to be Christian. :wink:


Ok. But you're definition wouldn't stand in a dictionary. :tongue:


It is important to remember that the Bible was primarily written for BC Jews (the Old Testament) as well as first and second century Christians (the New Testament). The big question is whether SSA would be an issue in these cultures. My understanding from reading people like J.P. Holding (who happens to be on this forum) is that something called the "Semetic Totality Concept" means that feelings wouldn't mean much to those cultures if they weren't acted on. You also don't see feelings mentioned much in OT law. It might be interesting for someone to see if SSA is mentioned in any other writings from similar historical periods and cultures.


Absolutely, that would be very interesting.


That's exactly what I meant.


Ok. But maybe you should find another definition then or describe it more, because some people think you might mean to force homosexuals or attack them all the time, even literally.


Homosexuals may be hurting themselves, but I wouldn't use force.


In what way do they hurt themselves?


I generally agree with this, with the reservation that they may still be hurting themselves.


Only if you believe that God finds it wrong. :wink: (there would be no other ground than that)


No. That's "salvation by works". I believe in "salvation by grace". You can see a more detailed exegesis here (http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html). It doesn't talk about homosexuality, but it does talk about how salvation works. It also does describe the Semetic Totality Concept mentioned above.

Ok, I'll read that.


In general, I would say that homosexuals can be saved the same way as anyone else, even if they still struggle with homsexual sin. Homosexuality is no worse than any other sin from this perspective.

I don't even see much sin in it. Most homosexuals don't have any clue it might be wrong, so who can find them responsible in that case? They feel it's wrong to act against their nature. Murder someone would have more to do with conscience (though many murderers have no consciousness anymore, it's obviously considered wrong by most people). Even some "little" sins would more obviously be wrong then homosexual behavior. I guess that might be different in your country->there more people are religious so more homosexuals know about sin and homosexual behavior. Still they of course feel heterosexual behavior is against their nature, so it must be hard for them to see the sin in it. Pfff, I find this a difficult issue.


People are responsible for their own choices, yes. However, the harm I was referring to was more like the medical (http://www.narth.com/menus/medical.html) and psychological (http://www.narth.com/docs/recent.html) issues.


Homosexuals get warned about possible medical harm. Of course that's important. But STD's and HIV can happen with everyone as long as you don't have safe sex. Homosexuals might have more STD's or/and HIV then heterosexuals, it's not exclusively a homosexual issue, and we should warn and inform both homosexuals and heterosexuals, just everyone, so they know the risks and make the right choice.
Homosexuals with mental/psychological problems should be helped just as heterosexuals with those problems. The point is: it's not because of the fact they're homosexual homosexuals have more mental issues (why should they?), as many say. It's because of the society's view and some individuals view on homosexuals and their reaction to it. I think. But we disagree here, I think.


See, ex-gays can be in a position to know. This is why their testimonies hold more water, unless they can be discredited by other means.

Gays who tried to change too.
And it's still questionable to me whether they really changed or not.

[Yamyam]

NARTH had nothing to do with the twin study. They just like to cite it. From what I've picked up, there have been several twin studies done over the years by various institutions. I have seen results cited (http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=27) with as low as 20% correspondence. You may have to get the cited journal from a university library or something if you want to read up on that study.


NOOOOOO, WHYYYY???!!! I was almost finished with my reply on this post and then it all DISAPPEARED, now I have to start all over again, NOOOOO. (Sorry, I hate those things) I don't even know what exactly I wrote.

So the results vary.


This does raise the question of whether even the 20%-60% (depending on the study) is really all due to genes at all, or whether it could be at least partially due to environmental factors.


Absolutely.


I haven't seen any twin studies comparing environmental factors. These would certainly make for an interesting if either of us comes upon one.


While those would most definetely clear things up. Maybe I could mail those researchers who did twin studies and ask if they could take environmental factors in account next time. :wink:


If their SSA was still reduced, the SSA was reduced regardless of whether this was from correcting a bad past or not.


Yes, but I wonder whether they were really gay anyway. Most were sex obsessed and never had a monogamous homosexual relationship. Also if they're being gay came from bad happenings during their childhood it might be more of a fake-gayness than real gayness->pedophiles also happen to be pedophile because of happenings during their youth->while I wonder if that's an ok feeling and/or genetic. I haven't seen one case of an ex-gay who had a happy homosexual life, or somehow a NORMAL life, so they aren't very representative.


What do you define as "normal"? You said it was normal in your culture to have one-night stands...


I define "normal" as the standard to which most people act/feel/see things.


If you mean monogamy, can you give me at least one example of a monogamous homosexual? They seem to be exceedingly rare. People often argue that someone who makes my argument is stereotyping, but why not just provide an example?


Are you kidding me??? :twitch: I ONLY know monogamous homosexuals! I can give you thousands of examples. Maybe that's different in America (because it's still hard to come out as a homosexual so they have to do things in secret huh? :ahem:) but in the Netherlands most homosexuals who have a relationship are monogamous. To give you an example close to me:
The woman my mother fell in love with a long time ago is now her best friend and also like a second mother to me, so I know her very well. She has a monogamous relationship with another women for about 10 years now and lives together with her for about 4 years. They only have sex with each other, and would find it a terrible adultery if one would have sex with someone else.


Know of any? Even GID (gender identity disorder) is cited as a cause...


I know some. :wink:


Yeah.

Not to my knowledge.

Yeah, I found out about those quite a long time ago. That's the standard argument against the credibility of NARTH, as I cited earlier.

Could be political/moral presuppositions, or listening too much to the unverifiable claims of homosexuals, or that reparative therapy and such are not universally suitable or effective for all homosexuals. I haven't seen many actual reasons from any of those organizations.

You can use the same arguments against NARTH: moral presuppositions (homosexuality is wrong/unwanted), listening too much to the unverifiable claims of ex-homosexuals. (rest does not apply)
I think the big argument against NARTH is is that it isn't controlled enough. There should be organisations checking on them, whether they do objective research, and they take in account all the fores and againsts. I would still prefer a objective organisation with different kinds of people in it (for, against, no opinion, etc) to do a GOOD research to the subject. I guess they're only people in NARTH who share their opinion. That just IS a shortcoming. A bible translated by people with a specific view on it would make for sure a different, and probably a less credible/reliable bible then one translated by a bunch of people with different, even opposing views (Christians, Jews, Theologists, People with a good knowledge of the Scriptures, or Ancient Times etc all together).


I didn't say that this was always the case. I just said it was one potential cause. I'm sure repressed memories would have other repercussions, as well.

Not that I know of. Just that both might be influenced by trauma.

That would be because SSA is a complex phenomenon that cannot be narrowed down to any single cause, be it genetics or certain environmental factors. Like most other things in psychology, it's probably an interaction of many different phenomena.


Yeah, that's easy. I'm sure if you can explain why some people get homosexual you can also explain why others don't. I'm not talking about a single cause, it can have more causes why one doesn't or does get homosexual, but if there's no factor/reason which ex-gays claim to be factors/reasons to develop homosexuality, you just have a problem..


It's also possible that those with parallel factors may have had non-parallel factors which countered the effects.

Stuff like gender identity disorder. For example:


And what causes gender identity disorder?


PeopleCanChange explains this as "opposites attract". This is where culture might have an effect. If it were masculine to be sensitive and feminine to play football, these might be the straight people.


What do you mean with opposites attract and the link to GID?


This would still be a disorder, probably caused by the over-liberalization of Europe. Don't know of a direct name for it, though.


Well, that's quite a statement, to claim most youngsters in the Netherlands (I don't know about other countries) have a disorder. :teeth: :ahem:


Feelings can be deceiving.


Exactly! So why believe an ex-gay who claims his feelings didn't deceived him?


How monogamous? As I said, monogamous homosexuals seem to be the exception rather than the rule (not that there aren't promiscuous heterosexuals). I would also see the SSB as disorderly.


As monogamous that they don't have sex nor intimate relationships with others and they maybe want to marry some day.


Depends on how broadly or how few traits could meet your requirements.


As broad so most people would recognize the man as gay.
It could.


I wouldn't really say that we have true indicative sexuality until puberty hits...


What do we have then?


But why couldn't they be causes? We are dealing with a complex phenomenon here.


Because I say so. :tongue: Kidding. Those characteristics are there at a very young age -> once the boy or girl is conscious about him/herself as an individual being. It seems to me therefore it's probably genetic.


That first one shows quite a lack of being able to think outside the box. It is normal to compare one's own development to that of other guys, and most sexual attractions don't really hit until around puberty.


I don't know what you mean. Are you saying he couldn't look at boys in stead of girls in primary age? Children look at other children also. It might be somewhat different from teenagers and adults, sure, but they also fall in love or admire other children or teachers, and "practice" for later. :teeth: Homosexuals just fall in love with the boys in stead of the girls and aren't interested in the girls bathroom but the boys bathroom, etc.


See above.

Epistemologically, how would they know?


My dictionary can't find any word beginning with episte. :blush: Can you explain what it is?


Probably because the phenomenon is complicated and the factors are varied from person to person.


But I want an explanation!!!!!! :bonk:


People may not have really developed SSA at the point they label themselves. Self-labeling is also cited, though I can't find the source right now.


Ah, please find the source, that would be interesting.


Yeah.

Probably a mixture of both, like most everything else.

To what do you refer here?


Characteristics other people can recognise/recognize (what's the right word?).


I don't have time for a detailed read now, but I've seen lots of articles like that before. (If I recall the first one from when I read it before, there were many assertions and very little research.) Certainly, not everyone who tries to change succeeds.


You should read them before you call. The ones I cited aren't about the low succes rate.


Probably.

Many say it happens after they have been rejected, or that they fantasize about someone who has gone against the grain and accepted them. Not necessarily homosexually caused.


Rejected by a man you mean? Or/and accepted by a man?


That's another thing I would consider sad. It doesn't look so healthy.


I'm very happy they are happy, and I find them more healthy this way then rejecting their homosexuality.


Not everyone can psychoanalyze themselves.

What do you mean? It *still* has more to do with guilt than with the reasons I mentioned?


As I said, feelings can be deceiving. "OK" does have to be defined from somewhere. I won't hide the fact that I define this from Christianity.

I'm getting more Christian every day but I'm so totally convinced homosexuality isn't wrong I could shout it from the roofs. (Dutch saying, don't know if you know it in English :wink:)

[Little Shepherd]

I have yet to meet a homosexual that says this is possible and you'd think if anyone knows about being gay, it's them.
You've met one now, and I'm not alone. That you haven't met any before isn't proof that they aren't out there, but rather is proof that you didn't look very hard.

Exodus International is one of the more well-known homosexual recovery organizations, and its website is complete with testimonials. I'm sure that if you were to write them, they'd be more than happy to address any questions you might have, and might even provide concrete numbers. I know their New Zealand chapter alone claims to have helped over 500 people over the past 12 years. I'm not familiar with the statistics from other branches, though. You'd have to ask them yourself.
http://www.exodus-international.org/
http://www.exodus-international.org/testimonials_left_HomoSexuality.shtml

I also have no idea why it surprises people that secular studies on the mutability of sexual orientation are iffy at best. Christians who claim that it is have made it abundantly clear that such a complete transformation is only possibly because of Christ Himself. That's why the vast, vast majority of recovered homosexuals are Christians, and why most organizations supporting homosexual recovery are Christian-based. Giving your life to Christ is kind of a prerequisite for any kind of lasting recovery from homosexuality. I don't think we've ever been unclear on this.

[Yamyam]

You've met one now, and I'm not alone. That you haven't met any before isn't proof that they aren't out there, but rather is proof that you didn't look very hard.

Exodus International is one of the more well-known homosexual recovery organizations, and its website is complete with testimonials. I'm sure that if you were to write them, they'd be more than happy to address any questions you might have, and might even provide concrete numbers. I know their New Zealand chapter alone claims to have helped over 500 people over the past 12 years. I'm not familiar with the statistics from other branches, though. You'd have to ask them yourself.
http://www.exodus-international.org/
http://www.exodus-international.org/testimonials_left_HomoSexuality.shtml

I also have no idea why it surprises people that secular studies on the mutability of sexual orientation are iffy at best. Christians who claim that it is have made it abundantly clear that such a complete transformation is only possibly because of Christ Himself. That's why the vast, vast majority of recovered homosexuals are Christians, and why most organizations supporting homosexual recovery are Christian-based. Giving your life to Christ is kind of a prerequisite for any kind of lasting recovery from homosexuality. I don't think we've ever been unclear on this.

You should read my discussion with jerickson here and tell me why I'm wrong. :wink:

[Fr. Seraphim]

jerickson,
You wanted research or documentation that the sorts of people I mentioned even existed (i.e. Chromsomally one gender and anatomically the other)? Here is a link to a list of articles that discuss in scientific fashion what you asked for:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?b=at&qt=sex+chromosome+abnormalities+%2F+research

If that isn't enough to whet your appetite, then I don't know what will.

Gütten glück!

[Tux314]

Yeah, but I'm afraid it's hard/maybe even impossible to verify that claim of ex-gays.

The claim is about feelings, so it would be impossible to truly verify the claim. However, we believe claims we cannot directly verify all the time. Even the court system sometimes has to accept the testimony of a witness as evidence by itself.

They might believe they changed, so for them it's verifiable, but that isn't a proof, because some people also believe they're rabbits, which isn't true.

People who believe that they're rabbits would generally show signs of insanity beyond the claim of being a rabbit. I haven't seen anyone claim that ex-gays are insane. The point is that ex-gays are in a position to know whether they themselves changed. Just as you can know whether you're happy or sad at any given moment, but no one else can prove it.

How do you want to proof they really changed into heterosexuals? Some GOOD research should be done, also in what way they HAD feelings towards men and women before the "change" (which I don't see in any research), what could be the cause of those feelings, in what way their feelings towards men and women changed, what could be the cause of the change, and how much those new feelings changed their lifes and this in comparison with homosexuals who tried to change but didn't change. And all that done by an objective research institute. Right now they're are too many difficulties against the research done. I don't see how you want to verify they changed.

The issue is that it is nearly impossible to verify whether people have SSA feelings. There might conceivably be a way. For instance, the recent smell study showing that gay males reacted differently to a chemical in testosterone as compared to straight males. I don't know whether someone with SSA who hadn't become involved in SSB would react the same way or not, though. In order to study this latter question, one would have to assume that statements about SSA are true without other proof. I suppose that someone who tested positively for being gay while still a virgin would provide reasonable evidence of a link between SSA and the physical reaction.

However, you still have the issue of finding people to sample. Someone who already intends to change might react differently from a normal homosexual.

As I already mentioned, verifiability to ex-gays only isn't a proof or verifiability for us all. I also believed I was bisexual for 5 years, and now I believe I never was->some idiot who thought the same thing might believe he has changed. My specific reason to discredit them, or not believe them just from their words, is that none is representative for an usual gay, they all had terrible or/and sex obsessed lifes before their change, I don't think it makes things more credible.

I would say that if they were involved in homosexual behavior for years, there is no rational basis for doubting that they were originally homosexual.

PLUS feelings are difficult to put in words, it should be verified in the first place if their feelings to women or men were as homo or heterosexual as with others.

It seems many ex-gays claim to have never become as heterosexual as others, but just that they became heterosexual enough to have a fulfilling heterosexual lifestyle.

I would thus consider ex-gays aren't just a viable source because they-say-so. There are many people in the world who believe they're God, and there's reason to not believe them also.

Those who believe themselves to be God are again insane people.

No. According to the article that 50-60% scale isn't reliable
and they explain why it isn't. I by the way wonder what the critisicm about that twin study consists of. Isn't that twin study the study you mentioned earlier as reliable?

It seems that though the research giving 50%-60% wasn't reliable, newer more reliable research only gives lower numbers, not higher ones.

I by the way wonder how that APA found out these genetic/not genetic percents. I suppose they asked mom, dad and child how they felt about death penalties and then made the conclusion: Ah mom found death penalties wrong for about 80% and dad about 60%, child about 50%, let's do a simple mathematics and we're done. My point is: because mom and dad feels a certain way about certain subjects doesn't mean it's genetic.

I'm guessing it was probably twin studies.

It's even more possibly due to education if the child feels the same way about death penalties than mom. I think feelings towards abortion, death penalties, casual sex, equalities, and reading books are more due to environmental factors. Rollercoasters and humility might also have more physical aspects, genetic and environmental.

Certainly.

About weight: I think 20-40% difference in weight might be the effort still worth it. One who has a father and mother from about 190 kg (you probably count in pounds->I suppose pounds are about the double?) doesn't mean it's genetic to weigh that much. It's probably genetic to weigh more than usual, gain weight easily, and have a lot of hunger (?) but it isn't to weigh 190 kg's, because you're parents do. They achieved that weight by environmental factors more than genetic factors. I'm sure a baby doesn't weigh as much in proportion with adults who weigh 190 kg. Thus losing weight is worth trying, because in this case it might help about 60% 'cause the overdose kg's isn't genetic.

I believe the studies look for statistical correlation, which is something different. Statistical correlation would show that people with certain genetic trends have a tendency to be overweight, not that a certain proportion of their body weight is the direct result of genetics. The genes would likely have an effect on things like metabolism, which in turn would have an effect on weight. However, the genetic effect can certainly be countered in the case of weight.

Yes, I did so myself. :teeth: Ok, you're right about the strong feeling argument. (it might have anyway more to do with my thought that's why it HAS to be genetic) I now begin to wonder....why do people have the intuition/feeling that homosexuality MUST be genetic because it's such a strong feeling, and why not with phobias? I guess because homosexuality is something that's there since you were born (in my opinion, and in some way in you're opinion also) and a phobia is OBVIOUSLY something you develop within a period of time. Hmm..

Maybe, but we do have evidence that homosexuality isn't present at birth.

You already prooved I was wrong, because with twins they get the same hormons in the womb.
But in this article they write:
There is recently published material (after Born Gay) in which the entire human genome was scanned, and they could find no significant associations with SSA. (Mustanski, et al, 2005, including Dean Hamer as author). Perhaps closer tests will eventually show something, but at present the gene hypothesis is not supported, and any genetic contribution should be nearer 0% than 50 to 100%. Hamer's own previous work suggesting an SSA-gene association is not supported.
How can that be true, while that twin study prooved being gay was about 50% due to genetic factors? (though they can't find the genes) Or wasn't that twin study reliable, and why not?

Again, we have the issue that we could be dealing with factors that influence rather than cause. This is what "statistical correlation" refers to, and what a twin study is capable of demonstrating. There is no gene on the human genome that causes SSA, but there are genes for things like temperament and sports aptitude which could increase the chances of becoming SSA due to environmental factors.

I'm sorry, what's a Path Analysis?

I don't know.

[quote=YamyamThat Spitzer study, you know a link to that?[/quote]

A summary by an unrelated organization is here (http://www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzer.htm), though I don't know where to find a more original source.

Out of time already tonight. You might want to wait until I have a chance to reply to more of your post before replying to mind.

[Tux314]

In this case, yes. I do not mean the usual definition of bisexual: feeling sexual attraction to women and men, but more as a ground sexuality: one can lean towards the heterosexual side and one can lean to the homosexual side. So a person who is 100% heterosexual (I wonder if that exists) leans 50% to the right on the bisexuality scale.

With this you are setting up a definition. A definition can be neither proved nor disproved.

Then it doesn't matters, but I don't know any ex-gay who is totally hetero. Some might be for 60% in stead of 40%. :teeth: Than they're still not heterosexual. By the way: I can also make my sexual feelings towards MEN go mostly away, by thinking them away/suppressing them/focus on other things/go into celibacy. That doesn't make me gay or asexual. It's a change of focus mostly. Finding the opposite or same sex sexually attractive is another thing though. But if everyone would be bisexual that's also a change of focus. What if one is 98% homosexual? How can one then change into 60% heterosexual, as they say? I have no clue. That's why I think those ex-gays weren't 98% homosexual, but probably more around 60% and they focussed so much it looked like 90%. Even when they would be 90% homosexual and they would want to change, and change their focus, it's very possible they once meet a beautiful woman, fall in love and marry her. Once they're married they're even less focussed on men, and the one time they feel attracted to men it's not so very hard to suppress it or don't take notice of it. With 10% heterosexuality you can still fall very in love with a woman and have no interest in anyone else anymore. You just change your perspective, broaden it and make it smaller at the sime time. That doesn't say too much about genetics of environment...A person who is 90% gay and 10% hetero but falls in love with a women is still 90% gay and 10% hetero, right? The only problem is it's hard to find out how much percent you're gay or homosexual, 'cause you don't know what will happen next in your life. It's a snapshot. That means it looks like someone can change from 50% homosexual into 90% homosexual, for instance, because he can only calculate percents from his past life. Even at the end of his life it's hard to find the exact percents, because of the change of focus. For someone who never cared about falling in love with women or men it might be more easy to find the right percents, because he never tried to change focus and probably changed it less then. BUT the percents are inborn.
Hmm, I like my theory. :lol:

Interesting. Some ex-gays would probably say that their change in attractions was a change in focus, but not all do. Also, celibacy does not eliminate sexual attraction.

In what way do they hurt themselves?

This was a reference to the physical and psychological issues. "It makes them happy" is not a refutation of this point. Cocaine addicts think that smoking crack makes them happy. The long term consequences are what must be evaluated. More study is needed in this area.

I don't even see much sin in it. Most homosexuals don't have any clue it might be wrong, so who can find them responsible in that case? They feel it's wrong to act against their nature. Murder someone would have more to do with conscience (though many murderers have no consciousness anymore, it's obviously considered wrong by most people). Even some "little" sins would more obviously be wrong then homosexual behavior. I guess that might be different in your country->there more people are religious so more homosexuals know about sin and homosexual behavior. Still they of course feel heterosexual behavior is against their nature, so it must be hard for them to see the sin in it. Pfff, I find this a difficult issue.

Among Christians, we do have the Bible making clear condemnations of SSB.

Gays who tried to change too.

Gays who tried to change still cannot know with certainty whether change is possible. They can, however, evaluate the effectiveness of the particular ex-gay techiques they tried. This was what my analogy in an earlier post about trying to heal a broken arm with Tylenol was about.

And it's still questionable to me whether they really changed or not.

What do you mean by "really" changed?

[Tux314]

NOOOOOO, WHYYYY???!!! I was almost finished with my reply on this post and then it all DISAPPEARED, now I have to start all over again, NOOOOO. (Sorry, I hate those things) I don't even know what exactly I wrote.

That's happened to me before.

Yes, but I wonder whether they were really gay anyway. Most were sex obsessed and never had a monogamous homosexual relationship.

This part at least wouldn't necessarily make them any less gay.

Also if they're being gay came from bad happenings during their childhood it might be more of a fake-gayness than real gayness->pedophiles also happen to be pedophile because of happenings during their youth->while I wonder if that's an ok feeling and/or genetic.

It could be possible that the source of SSA could have an influence on its mutability (ability to be changed). More research is needed. I have to wonder, how many people with seemingly "normal" backgrounds have attempted change?

I haven't seen one case of an ex-gay who had a happy homosexual life, or somehow a NORMAL life, so they aren't very representative.

There is still the fact that those who are happy with their homosexual lives are unlikely to attempt change. Christianity would be the only likely motivator. See here (especially) (http://www.exodus.to/testimonials_left_HomoSexuality.shtml) and here (http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/menus/pages.html) for some Christian testimonies.

I define "normal" as the standard to which most people act/feel/see things.

The question is how this would apply to a sexual lifestyle.

Are you kidding me??? :twitch: I ONLY know monogamous homosexuals! I can give you thousands of examples. Maybe that's different in America (because it's still hard to come out as a homosexual so they have to do things in secret huh? :ahem:) but in the Netherlands most homosexuals who have a relationship are monogamous. To give you an example close to me:
The woman my mother fell in love with a long time ago is now her best friend and also like a second mother to me, so I know her very well. She has a monogamous relationship with another women for about 10 years now and lives together with her for about 4 years. They only have sex with each other, and would find it a terrible adultery if one would have sex with someone else.

Looks like you have successfully provided an example, provided that the testimony is accurate. I see no particular reason to doubt it.

You can use the same arguments against NARTH: moral presuppositions (homosexuality is wrong/unwanted), listening too much to the unverifiable claims of ex-homosexuals. (rest does not apply)

That's why we would have to compare the research.

I think the big argument against NARTH is is that it isn't controlled enough. There should be organisations checking on them, whether they do objective research, and they take in account all the fores and againsts. I would still prefer a objective organisation with different kinds of people in it (for, against, no opinion, etc) to do a GOOD research to the subject. I guess they're only people in NARTH who share their opinion. That just IS a shortcoming.

Seems like all the organizations have this shortcoming at this point.

Yeah, that's easy. I'm su