How important is the protection of Religious freedom?

[youngborean]

Outcry rises over Afghan Christian convert


Very interesting story. Sharia law prescribes execution for converts, Western ideals say that no one should be persecuted for religious beliefs. So whose freedom to practice religion is more important (the west or the pro-Sharia Muslims)? And if we elect to support religious freedom should this pressure be applied to all regions where Sharia law exists (Iran, etc.)? Self-determination is more complicated than anyone imagined.

[1John2_26]

Palmera, I promise to be nice because you are such an excellent writer.

1John2_26 wrote:
The history of Islam was war from its founding prophet killing people that would not "submit" to Islam (redundant huh?) to three-minutes ago. The prophet Mohammad got some kind of bad communication from angel calling itself Gabriel, as the Qur'an, is wrong about Biblical facts. Of course the Muslims solve this by claiming that Jews and Christians for some reasons changed the text of the Bible that was Muslim-supporting hundreds of years before Mohammad would be born. It makes no sense, but that is Islam for you. My ignorance about Islam is no where to be found.

What you fail to address is that religion, any religion, does not stand alone as an absolute. You assume much about Islam, but fail to critically ask: "why?" "The" history of Islam is multi-faceted and was not centered solely around expansion through war.

A critical look at at Mohammad, the founder and inventor of Islam, would show a counter argument to your view. Mecca. It did not fall to a Billy Graham crusade. It fell to the sword of Allah. Or, better yet, to the swords in the hands of Muslims.

Rather than make educated statements, you over-generalize and sensationalize issues showing that your knowledge of Islam is quite limited. Being ignorant of the issues isn't necessarily bad; but once you start making claims about other peoples, cultures, and religions without sufficient analysis of the matter and of yourself, you run the risk of sounding like a bigot.

I own two Qur'an's. I have read them. They are not written in a cohesive way. But killing non-Muslims is OK.

For the future- study the humanist tradition within Islam; also, learn more about the fact that "free thinkers" like yourself owe a lot to Islam.

What you are failing to insert is that the greatness of the Arabian middle eastern mindset pre-dates Islam by thousands of years. Math is a place to start. Muslims are followers of a religion that includes the use of violence to spread that message as completely acceptable. That would be proven by historical sources.

Christianity changed no stories of the Jewish Tanakh - the Old Testament -but only interprets the words that are there in ways Jewish believers in Judaism do not. Mohammad presneted different stories. Whatever spirit talked to mohammad, it got some Bible stuff wrong. When Christian Missionaries go all over the world and feed people and preach them the Gospl they "do their religion." When Muslim's shoot or hack people to death for refusing to be Muslims's they are also "doing their religion." In the Qur'an it says that Muslim's should not be friends of Christians and Jews because they are friends of each other.

Quote:
So it was Quakers threatening to kill Abdul Rahman? It was Rosacrucians that flew planes into the Twin Towers in New York? It was Raelians that beheahed people today in the middle east?

It was Muslims doing what Muslims have done unreported since Mohammad raided caravans. Though I may be ignorant of the numbers of people killed by Muslims though. That I must confess. We have only had news crews in the Middle east for a few years.

Yes, individuals claiming to be Muslims terrorized America.

"Individuals" cliaming to be Muslims? No Christian gets off the hook for the Crusades if they dare that response. Were Muslim's "claiming to be Muslims" when they conquered Jerusalem from an unsuspecting and innocent Christian population that lived in Jerusalem hundereds of years before Mohammad was even born? Or, were Muslim's doing what they did to Meccans?

Does that mean that they responsibly followed the tenets of their faith?

According to real history or political correctness? It appears from world history they were just Muslim's.

Perhaps, did their limited understanding of Islam coupled with a multitude of other pressures create a lens of hatred through which they saw the world?

No, I believe it was the cold, calculated flying lessons that these Muslims took for a long time leading up to the days they hijacked and murdered people in the plains and Twin-Towers as the "martyred themselves" for Allah. There is no such thing as self-induced suicide-murder martyrdom in Christianity or Judaism.

Could it be that the reality is more complex than "It was Muslims doing what Muslims have done..."

I have just proven that it is complex. But not undiscernable at all.

don't you realize that 98% of the populous in Germany was Christian during the Holocaust?

And Christians rose to fight against the Nazi's that believed in the religion of Aryanism. As well as other Germanic religions that drove the Nazi's. You should study the religious side of the Third Reich. Discovery has a few Dvd's that can help you learn all about it.

Some Christians did, most did nothing.

How many Christians are doing nothing today about the horor arising as we speak. In many instances calling itself "Christianity?" There is a way to test things.

Nazis used Christian scriptures to legitimize what they were doing.

So are liberals that literally are not Christians but claim Christian garb and verbiage.

Rather than watch tv programs, perhaps you should start with, I don't know, a book. Try The Destruction of the European Jews for starters. It's pretty comprehensive for a first read, but it addresses well the role religion played before, during, and after the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.

I [have] own thousands of books. I think. And, read the majority of them.

There is a lot of erroneous beliefs out there. No strike that. There is a lot of lies brought to the world as truth.

"Testing all things" is good advice from one of the worlds truthful teachings.

You try that with Islam and you can get killed. You try that with liberal/secularism in the common college class and you'll can get a failing grade. Try telling Richard Dawkins he is completely wrong as you approach finals.

You thinking I'm ignorant (non-insulting don't worry) is not in any way proving your assertion. I don't believe I presented anything but accuaracy in this post. Including the Muslims taking flying lessons for the purpose of hi-jacking and killing people in the name of their religion.

Now, there were religious Muslim leaders saying it was Islamic appropriateness to behead someone that chooses to leave Islam? I admit I heard that on TV.

[1John2_26]

If you read the Hebrew Scriptures you will find all kinds of death and killing. Even in the name of God.

True. Good advice would be to not oppose the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and practice abominations. Luckily for the world Jesus claimed there was a way to do that without violence anymore, and at the same time claimed to be the God of Abraham.

Read the New Testament and you find the same thing only coming soon as the Christians giggle and dance with glee over their salvation and the death of most of humanity.

False.

I think you might have more in common then you think with Islam.

False.

They dont like gays either. God told them not too in the Koran.

They believe that men and women get married. The history of pederasty male-male sex acts, traces its roots to Arabia. I'll bet the Qur'an opposes gays by supporting real families. But it's just a guess.

Firstly, lots of Christians (the Crusades are worth a mention) have killed in the name of God.

Please provide a number to fill in the blanks of that myth? I know a lie told long enough can sometimes be taken as a fact. We certainly can get fairly accurate numbers of religious people slaughtered in the millions by atheists in Russia in the 20th century. Killing people is wrong.

Secondly, giggling and dancing with glee and some kind of sick superiority doesn't sound very Christian to me.

Becoming the least is "superiority?" have you ever red the Gospels? It does not seem so.

Thirdly, what does sexual orientation have to do with this discussion?

Religious freedom. It is being taken from Christians. Look:

http://www.royclements.co.uk/essays04.htm

"Homophobia" in the Church

.The Lesbian and Gay Christian Fellowship has recently published a research report entitled Christian Homophobia. It defines homophobia as an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, and their culture and details a number of case studies which illustrate the following key findings:.

That the majority of homophobic abuse suffered by gay men and lesbians in the UK is supported by the words and actions of the Christian churches..

A Christian Homphobia Hotline has also been established which invites calls in confidence from any gay man or lesbian who feels they have been discriminated against by Christians

No freedom for Christians.

Personally...

From a moral/ethical standpoint, I think a secular government which allows for freedom to practice any religion or not to is more desirable but changing a whole country's attitude towards the relationship between religion and the law is bordering on the impossible and the Western world somehow forcing such a change would probably stir up so much hate and resentment that it would probably have the opposite effect.

When you're right you're right.

When you're wrong you're wrong. You finished up strong.

[micatala]

Religious freedom. It is being taken from Christians. Look:

Quote:
http://www.royclements.co.uk/essays04.htm

"Homophobia" in the Church

.The Lesbian and Gay Christian Fellowship has recently published a research report entitled Christian Homophobia. It defines homophobia as an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, and their culture and details a number of case studies which illustrate the following key findings:.

That the majority of homophobic abuse suffered by gay men and lesbians in the UK is supported by the words and actions of the Christian churches..

A Christian Homphobia Hotline has also been established which invites calls in confidence from any gay man or lesbian who feels they have been discriminated against by Christians

No freedom for Christians.

The same false assertion you have made in numerous other threads.

Once again, you mistake people expressing a viewpoint different from your own with people actually oppressing Christians.

Please provide evidence of a systematic denial of freedom to Christians to express their views. I have asked before, and you have never been able to provide it. Evidence would consiste of large numbers of people being arrested or subject to legal sanctions solely on the basis of adhering to Christianity.

When you're right you're right.

When you're wrong you're wrong. You finished up strong.

What actual evidence do you have that you are right and those expressing counter-vailing views are wrong? Assertions and opinions and claims of correctness are not evidence.

[1John2_26]

Please provide evidence of a systematic denial of freedom to Christians to express their views. I have asked before, and you have never been able to provide it. Evidence would consiste of large numbers of people being arrested or subject to legal sanctions solely on the basis of adhering to Christianity.

What actual evidence do you have that you are right and those expressing counter-vailing views are wrong? Assertions and opinions and claims of correctness are not evidence.

Science supports, for example, the "disapproval" of sexually deviant behavior.

Not only have secularists driven Christians fron public education under the invented rule of seperation of church and state (which does not exist) but Christians in Britain cannot even "disapprove" of sexually deviant behavior.

Homophobia in the Church

.The Lesbian and Gay Christian Fellowship has recently published a research report entitled Christian Homophobia. It defines homophobia as an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, and their culture and details a number of case studies which illustrate the following key findings:.

That the majority of homophobic abuse suffered by gay men and lesbians in the UK is supported by the words and actions of the Christian churches..

That such homophobia has a serious daily effect on the health and well-being of the gay and lesbian population of this country, sometimes leading to absence from work, depression, physical harm and even suicide..

That the Christian churches in the UK have had a disproportionate influence on legislation affecting gays and lesbians and have, at every turn, tried to frustrate the will of parliament, defy the international consensus on human rights, and to gain exemption for themselves from the fair and equal treatment of lesbians and gay men.

That in the methods and organisation, conservative Christian groups in this country now amount to a "Christian Right" similar to that which has been active in the US for some years.

That sermons and Christian resource material supporting gay men and lesbians have been censored or destroyed, and that young people in church youth groups and other Christian settings are being indoctrinated into homophobia.

That there are sigificant numbers of counsellors, psychologists and other health professionals whose "Christian" beliefs lead them to attempt the "changing", "curing", or "exorcising" of gay men and lesbians against all the advice of reputable professional associations.

The full report is availablefrom LGCM, Oxford House, Derbyshire St., London E2 6HG

More details are also available on their website www.lgcm.org.uk

A Christian Homphobia Hotline has also been established which invites calls in confidence from any gay man or lesbian who feels they have been discriminated against by Christians

[micatala]

Quote:
Please provide evidence of a systematic denial of freedom to Christians to express their views. I have asked before, and you have never been able to provide it. Evidence would consiste of large numbers of people being arrested or subject to legal sanctions solely on the basis of adhering to Christianity.

What actual evidence do you have that you are right and those expressing counter-vailing views are wrong? Assertions and opinions and claims of correctness are not evidence.

Science supports, for example, the "disapproval" of sexually deviant behavior.

This is irrelevant. Science is not law. Science does not apply legal sanctions. You have changed the subject.

Why would anyone reading your response not conclude that you had no basis for you assertion?

Not only have secularists driven Christians fron public education under the invented rule of seperation of church and state (which does not exist) but Christians in Britain cannot even "disapprove" of sexually deviant behavior.

Quote:
Homophobia in the Church

.The Lesbian and Gay Christian Fellowship has recently published a research report entitled Christian Homophobia. It defines homophobia as an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, and their culture and details a number of case studies which illustrate the following key findings:.

That the majority of homophobic abuse suffered by gay men and lesbians in the UK is supported by the words and actions of the Christian churches..

That such homophobia has a serious daily effect on the health and well-being of the gay and lesbian population of this country, sometimes leading to absence from work, depression, physical harm and even suicide..

That the Christian churches in the UK have had a disproportionate influence on legislation affecting gays and lesbians and have, at every turn, tried to frustrate the will of parliament, defy the international consensus on human rights, and to gain exemption for themselves from the fair and equal treatment of lesbians and gay men.

That in the methods and organisation, conservative Christian groups in this country now amount to a "Christian Right" similar to that which has been active in the US for some years.

That sermons and Christian resource material supporting gay men and lesbians have been censored or destroyed, and that young people in church youth groups and other Christian settings are being indoctrinated into homophobia.

That there are sigificant numbers of counsellors, psychologists and other health professionals whose "Christian" beliefs lead them to attempt the "changing", "curing", or "exorcising" of gay men and lesbians against all the advice of reputable professional associations.

The full report is availablefrom LGCM, Oxford House, Derbyshire St., London E2 6HG

More details are also available on their website www.lgcm.org.uk

A Christian Homphobia Hotline has also been established which invites calls in confidence from any gay man or lesbian who feels they have been discriminated against by Christians

You have now changed the subject and changed the country as well.

Even so, your assertions are unsubstantiated. How many people have been arrested or faced legal sanctions in the UK simply for being Christian, or even simply for expressing disapproval of homosexuality?

So far, on other threads, I have seen you have provided one example of a cleric who was visited by police. No arrests, no nothing. Sorry, there is orders of magnitude more evidence that woman have been denied the right to go to the bathroom than there is that Christians have been denied freedom.

The reality is, your assertions are blatantly false. Christians are quite free to practice their religion and are arguably more free than any other segment of the population to speak their mind. This is true anywhere in the western world.

If you have actual evidence, and not unsubstantiated assertions and opinions and irrelevancies, please provide.

[1John2_26]

The reality is, your assertions are blatantly false. Christians are quite free to practice their religion and are arguably more free than any other segment of the population to speak their mind. This is true anywhere in the western world.

If you have actual evidence, and not unsubstantiated assertions and opinions and irrelevancies, please provide.

It is time for the quiet yet decent people in the western world to realize what is happeing to Christians, right before their very eyes.

SB 1437 TO BE VOTED ON APRIL 4 th!!!

HOMOSEXUAL CURRICULUM & TEXTBOOKS TO
BE USED IN THE CLASSROOM!!!

BLATANT HOMOSEXUAL TEACHINGS TO BE IMPLEMENTED
IN ALL CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS!!

BILL AIMED AT FORCING SCHOOLS TO ADVOCATE
PRO-HOMOSEXUAL POLICIES!!

*************************************************************************

SB 1437 by Kuehl (D): Pro-Homosexual Curriculum


Californias young students are the target of liberal legislators who wish to have every classroom blatantly teach and advocate homosexuality. Senator Kuehls bill will ban teacher instruction, all school activities, and all textbooks that she claims would "reflect adversely" upon a person due to their gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability or religion.

This means that no statement could be made that could be considered negative against homosexuality and all textbooks would have to positively portray the homosexual, bisexual or transgender lifestyles.

SB 1437 is clear No teacher , no school sponsored activity, no textbook, no instructional materials shall give instruction or contain "any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of theirgenderor sexual orientation"

SB 1437 cleverly accomplishes two major goals of radical homosexual activists: It gives pro-homosexual teachers free reign to teach whatever they want about the alleged positive aspects of homosexuality and it silences all opposition to it. Teachers would be free to promote homosexuality but banned from discussing any negative consequences.

They want every student in the state to read from textbooks that say homosexuality is ok and should be tried. They want every student to see pictures of homosexual couples in their workbooks. For every family portrayed with a mom and dad their must be a "family" with two men or two women.

School-sponsored activities including everything from cheerleading, sports, plays, to proms would be affected. Under SB 1437 school districts would likely be prohibited from having a prom king and queen because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation. Dont think this is far-fetched. In February at Hood College in Maryland, a lesbian was elected homecoming king beating out three men.

And . . .

Teen Girls Sue Christian School Over Expulsion For Improper Behavior
The right of religious schools to set moral standards is under attack by two girls who were expelled from a Lutheran school in 2005 over alleged homosexual attractions.

April 3, 2006 -- A Riverside Superior Court Judge has granted two girls the right to sue the California Lutheran High School Association for allegedly discriminating against them because of their sexual attractions to each other.

Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask has agreed to let this case go to trial instead of dismissing it as a frivolous lawsuit directly attacking the right of Christian schools to enforce a Code of Conduct upon the students who voluntarily attend. A hearing on this case is scheduled for July 9, 2006.

This case is a serious one and deserves to be watched closely. Homosexual activists are determined to impose their agenda in private religious schools and institutions regardless of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion.

Nathan Barankin, communications director for California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said: "This is an unsettled area of the law. The public policy issues are religious freedom versus the right not to be discriminated against."

The lawsuit, Mother Doe v. California Lutheran High School Association resulted from the expulsion of two girls from a California Lutheran High School who admitted they had strong feelings for each other. The girls lawyers refuse to say if they are practicing homosexuals.

The school, located in Wildomar, California, is operated by the California Lutheran High School Association and is part of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

In September 2005, School Principal Gregory Bork interviewed both girls separately and determined that they could not remain in the school if they pursued a homosexual relationship.

On September 15, Bork wrote a letter to the parents of the girls saying that "while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship). ... Such a relationship is un-Christian. To allow the girls to attend (Cal Lutheran) ... would send a message to students and parents that we either condone this situation and/or will not do anything about it. That message would not reflect our beliefs and principles."

The lawsuit was filed against the high school association and Mr. Bork. It alleges that Borks expulsion of the girls violates Californias Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids businesses operating in the state to engage in discrimination against any persons sexual orientation.

[palmera]

Californias young students are the target of liberal legislators who wish to have every classroom blatantly teach and advocate homosexuality. Senator Kuehls bill will ban teacher instruction, all school activities, and all textbooks that she claims would "reflect adversely" upon a person due to their gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability or religion.

This means that no statement could be made that could be considered negative against homosexuality and all textbooks would have to positively portray the homosexual, bisexual or transgender lifestyles

If schools use textbooks which portray how horrible it is to be homosexual then why not let the KKK write textbooks for public schools, or how about introducing gender discrimination in biology class? Better yet, let's make sure that people understand why some races, in fact all others except fine white people, are sub-human... we wouldn't want a textbook that doesn't touch on that. We certainly wouldn't want to deny any teacher the right to discriminate in public schools would we? That's what we tax payers pay for right- to ensure that we balance tolerant teaching with discriminatory teaching.... right?

[1John2_26]

A political rant seldom is a good debate response. Facts may be hidden for a time, but nature has a way of righting a listing ship.

If schools use textbooks which portray how horrible it is to be homosexual then why not let the KKK write textbooks for public schools, or how about introducing gender discrimination in biology class? Better yet, let's make sure that people understand why some races, in fact all others except fine white people, are sub-human... we wouldn't want a textbook that doesn't touch on that. We certainly wouldn't want to deny any teacher the right to discriminate in public schools would we? That's what we tax payers pay for right- to ensure that we balance tolerant teaching with discriminatory teaching.... right?

All human beings are created equal. Anatomy, physiology, biology . . . you get the "picture." Forcing horrid beliefs on others and taking away their rights to see the truth is a place where liberals and KKK members have a strange likeness.

But hearing from other people may help. Remember that like Muslim terrorists and secular lawsuits artists, the gays and lesbians want Christians and anyone else that will not submit to them wiped away from any input.

Protecting relgious freedom was obviously of TOP importance to the founders of the United States. Number one huh?

Hearing only one side is seldom a place for civility to be achieved.

As we know, as soon as they had a law to do so, Massachusetts gays and lesbians went for the throat of Christians at Catholic Charities adoption.

There was a starting point for the power of anti-Christians to gain its strength in the Gay Community. Now the third greatest force attacking Christians and Christianity. Here's a little history:

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover Testifies
Before Massachusetts Senate Committee
Studying Gay Marriage
On April 28, 2003, psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Satinover testified before the Massachusetts Senate Judicial Committee on various issues surrounding the subject homosexuality and the future of the family in America. Dr. Satinover is a member of NARTH's Scientific Advisory Committee.

Dr. Satinover discussed the following claims of homosexual activists, and offered a rebuttal to each of them. The claims he challenged were--
That homosexuality has been repeatedly demonstrated to be--and is in fact--an innate, genetically-determined condition.
That homosexuality is an immutable state.
That the only disadvantages of homosexuality are those caused by social disapproval and discrimination.
That a society composed of same-sex couples raising children in family-like units will differ in no undesirable ways from a society composed of traditional family units.

Dr. Satinover's testimony is reprinted below.
Jeffrey Satinover, MD is a Board-Certified Psychiatrist. He holds degrees from MIT (S.B., Humanities and Science), Harvard (Ed.M., Clinical Psychology and Public Practice), the University of Texas (M.D.) and Yale (M.S., Physics.) He completed his residency in Psychiatry at Yale with a year as Fellow of The Yale Child Study Center. He holds a Diploma in Analytical Psychology from the C. G. Jung Institute of Zurich. Dr. Satinover has practiced psychotherapy and/or psychiatry since 1974. He is the author of numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals of psychology and of neuroscience, chapters and books, among them Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.

April 28, 2003
Honorable Members, Citizens of Massachusetts:

The debate over homosexuality is one of the most contentious and divisive in which our society has ever engaged. On the face of it, one might wonder that so intensely personal and private a matter could achieve such public weight, but wonder aside, it has: In this legislation now under consideration by the State of Massachusetts, all the varying points of that debate come into sharp opposition.

As you all know, most keenly, the question before you is not merely one of academic dispute; rather, upon the outcome of your deliberations will depend the foundational social structure, hence direction of the Commonwealth in future, and in significant measure, that of our Nation as well.

It is therefore most urgent that these deliberations be based not only on compassion, and justice, but on the factual truth as well. Indeed, unless resting upon truth, neither justice nor compassion can long endure against shifts in sentiment.

That as a society we strive no longer to condone - rather to condemn --cruelty toward people attracted to members of their own sex is an absolute requirement of both justice and humanity. But we would be short-sighted indeed were we to advance this, as any other, just cause based on fictions: Not only will the inevitable uncovering of those fictions, however delayed, provide an excuse for bigotry to reclaim its unearned place, it will engender beliefs, attitudes and policies that, by flying in the face of reality, will lead to an increase, rather than a decrease in the happiness all are entitled to pursue. Nature (and if you prefer, "Nature's God") cannot be fooled.

A number of claims have become central to the argument that the definition and privileged status of marriage ought be expanded to include couples of the same sex. These claims are:

That homosexuality has been repeatedly demonstrated to be, and is in fact, an innate, genetically-determined condition.

That homosexuality is an immutable state of an individual.

That the only disadvantages of homosexuality are those caused by social disapproval and discrimination.

That a society composed of same-sex couples raising children in family-like units will differ from a society composed of traditional family units in no undesirable ways.
None of these claims are even remotely true, however widely believed they may have become; the evidence of the kind that "everyone knows" simply does not exist; even a cursory examination of the actual sources behind these claims will reveal a very strong preponderance of evidence to precisely the contrary; the claims are simply fiction. I have below assembled a selection of statements from prominent researchers. A far wider and more comprehensive bibliography of scientific references is provided as an attachment. Most of the statements below have been selected according to three basic principles:
(1) They are the general conclusions of prominent scientists whose research is well-respected.

(2) The scientists cited have specifically identified themselves as "gay" or "lesbian" and/or as more generally sympathetic to "gay activist" political positions.

(3) Their research is precisely that widely cited and believed as providing evidence directly contrary to what they themselves found and acknowledge. (It is to the credit of a number of them that they have publicly acknowledged that their own evidence contradicts what they had believed and had hoped to confirm.)


CLAIMS vs. THE EVIDENCE

Claim 1. That homosexuality has been repeatedly demonstrated to be, and is in fact, an innate, genetically-determined condition.

Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health performed and published the research most widely cited as pointing to a "gay gene." Dr. Hamer testified in the Colorado Proposition 2 court case that he was "99.5% certain that homosexuality is genetic." He later came to the following conclusions:
"The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed..."

Hamer's study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust. In this replication the genetic markers found by Hamer turned out to be of no statistical significance:
"It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer's et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation..."
Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at The Salk Institute in San Diego, founded the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Education in San Francisco after researching and publishing the study of hypothalamic structures in men most widely-cited as confirming innate brain differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, as he himself initially argued. He later acknowledged:
"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."
Furthermore:

"Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later."

Also pertinent to the present debate is his observation that:

"...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights."


Dr. Mark Breedlove at the University of California at Berkeley, referring to his own research: "[My] findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case - that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain."

Prominent research teams Byne & Parsons, and Friedman & Downey, both concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where "temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges."

Richard Pillard, is the coauthor of the two major twin studies on homosexuality most often cited as providing family evidence for homosexuality being inherited. He noted to an interviewer that he, his brother, and his sister are all homosexual and that one of his daughters from a now-failed marriage is bisexual. He speculated that his father was also homosexual. The interviewer, Chandler Burr, comments re Pillard: "Many of the scientists who have been studying homosexuality are gay, as am I." The interview is part of a book Burr wrote that purports to demonstrate that virtually all reputable scientists consider homosexuality genetic.
This is certainly what Pillard both wanted and expected to confirm by his research: "These studies were designed to detect heritable variation, and if it was present, to counter the prevalent belief that sexual orientation is largely the product of family interactions and the social environment"
But that is not what he found. Rather, he concluded:

"Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins."


Claim 2. That homosexuality is an immutable state of an individual.

The 1973 decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association has had a chilling effect on scientific objectivity with respect to homosexuality and on both public and professional attitudes concerning its permanence as an individual characteristic. The decision tended to confirm the sentiment that, since homosexuality has been voted out as a formal "disorder," it need not, cannot and should not be "treated", regardless of the principle that in a free society individuals should be free to pursue happiness each according to his own lights, consonant with the well-being of others.

But the American Psychiatric Association, like most other professional-practitioner associations, is not a scientific organization. It is a professional guild and as such, amenable to political influence in ways that science per se must not allow itself to be. Thus, the decision to de-list homosexuality was not made based on scientific evidence as is widely claimed. As Simon LeVay (cited above) acknowledges, "Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality."

But of far greater import is the fact that whether it is deemed a "disorder" or not, it is undesirable to many, and susceptible to change. The evidence for this fact should not be obscured by the false assumption that homosexuality is either innate and unchangeable, or a "lifestyle choice" and changeable at will. It is neither: It is most often a deeply- embedded condition that develops over many years, beginning long before the development of moral and self-awareness, and is genuinely experienced by the individual as though it was never absent in one form or another. It is, in other words, similar to most human characteristics, and shares with them the typical possibilities for, and difficulties in, achieving sustained change.

A review of the research over many years demonstrates a consistent 30- 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. Masters and Johnson reported a 65% success rate after a five-year follow-up. Other professionals report success rates ranging from 30% to 70%.

Dr. Lisa Diamond, a professor at the University of Utah, concludes that, "Sexual identity is far from fixed in women who aren't exclusively heterosexual."

Dr. Robert Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist and researcher at Columbia University has been the chief architect of the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual and he was the chief decision-maker in the 1973 removal of homosexuality from the diagnostic manual. He considers himself a gay-affirmative psychiatrist, and a long time supporter of gay rights. He has long been convinced that homosexuality is neither a disorder nor changeable. Because of the increasingly heated debate over the latter point within the professional community, Spitzer decided to conduct his own study of the matter. He concluded:
"I'm convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual...I think that's news...I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained."
When he presented his results to the Gay and Lesbian committees of the APA, anticipating a scientific debate, he was shocked to be met with intense pressure to withhold his findings for political reasons. Dr. Spitzer has subsequently received considerable "hate mail" and complaints from his colleagues because of his research. Douglas C. Haldeman, Ph.D., an independent practitioner in Seattle, WA, is a prominent gay-affirmative theorist. He comments, "From the perspective of gay theorists and activists. . . the question of conversion therapy's efficacy, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. It has been seen as a social phenomenon, one that is driven by anti-gay prejudice in society..."


Regarding change and the right to treatment, lesbian activist Camille Paglia states the following, in terms considerably sharper than most of us feel comfortable with:
"Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition - a phenomenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction...helping gays to learn how to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim."
Furthermore, just as locking onto a "choice versus genetic" dichotomy obscures reality, so, too, does locking onto "unchangeable versus therapeutic change." For it is also the case, well-documented but unobserved and unremarked upon, that the majority of "homosexuals" become "heterosexual" spontaneously, without therapy.


By way of introduction to the scientific evidence for this, it's worth citing Paglia again:

"We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage where children anxiously band together by gender..."
The scientific evidence is as follows:
The most comprehensive, most recent and most accurate study of sexuality, the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), was completed in 1994 by a large research team from the University of Chicago and funded by almost every large government agency and NGO with an interest in the AIDS epidemic. They studied every aspect of sexuality, but among their findings is the following, which I'm going to quote for you directly:

"7.1 [to as much as 9.1] percent of the men [we studied, more than 1,500] had at least one same-gender partner since puberty. ... [But] almost 4 percent of the men [we studied] had sex with another male before turning eighteen but not after. These men. . . constitute 42 percent of the total number of men who report ever having a same gender experience."
Let me put this in context: Roughly ten out of every 100 men have had sex with another man at some time - the origin of the 10% gay myth. Most of these will have identified themselves as gay before turning eighteen and will have acted on it. But by age 18, a full half of them no longer identify themselves as gay and will never again have a male sexual partner. And this is not a population of people selected because they went into therapy; it's just the general population. Furthermore, by age twenty-five, the percentage of gay identified men drops to 2.8%. This means that without any intervention whatsoever, three out of four boys who think they're gay at age l6 aren't by 25.

Claim 3. The only disadvantages of homosexuality are those caused by social disapproval and discrimination.

To mistakenly support three out of four gay identified men in their identification with homosexuality is not a benign mistake. Bailey (of the twin study) recently examined the question as to whether homosexuality is associated with a higher level of psychopathology. He concluded:

"Homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness.. [ or, another possibility]... that increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation."
He specifically cited "behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity." He noted that it would be a shame if "sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis."
The specific concern in supporting young men in a gay identification is that innumerable studies from major centers around the US and elsewhere note that a twenty-year-old man who identified himself as gay carries 30% (or greater) risk of being HIV positive or dead of AIDS by age 30. A recent Canadian study published concluded that in urban centers gay male identification is associated with a life expectancy comparable to that in Canada in the 1870's.


Claim 4. A society composed of same-sex couples raising children in family-like units will differ from a society composed of traditional family units in no undesirable ways.

There has recently been an attempt to demonstrate that raising children in a same-sex household has no ill effect. These studies are few in number, none have ever looked at those areas where difficulties would be expected and one of the most repeatedly cited researchers was excoriated by the court for her testimony when she refused to turn over her research notes to the court even at the urging of the ACLU attorneys for whom she was testifying.

What is known, from decades of research on family structure, studying literally thousands of children, is that every departure from the traditional, stable, mother-father family has severe detrimental effects upon children; and these effects persist not only into adulthood but into the next generation as well.

In short, the central problem with mother-mother or father-father families is that they deliberately institute, and intend to keep in place indefinitely, a family structure known to be deficient in being obligatorily and permanently either fatherless or motherless.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Hi, its been a while guys.

All human beings are created equal. Anatomy, physiology, biology . . . you get the "picture." Forcing horrid beliefs on others and taking away their rights to see the truth is a place where liberals and KKK members have a strange likeness.

So I would suppose John that in your apparently large collection of facts that you know that the Ku Klux Klan recruits white, american born, protestant christians to their group correct? (I would bet that you are their target demographic am I right?) I would also assume that you are aware of their violent history of lynching people of different color, religion, and nationality, much like the people you are accusing? I see aeons of difference between the KKK and people of liberal opinion.

You simply do not have to pay any mind to homosexuality if you don't want to. If you somehow infringe upon someone else's right to be whatever they want to bevand they protest, then you are at fault for infringing, not them for protesting. There is simply no evidence of a powerful homosexual organization persecuting a Christian for being a Christian. Unless you have witnessed anyone who has been the victim of such a violation of your right to be christian than you should have no problem if some joe-schmo you don't know is in love with another schmo.

God bless the establishment clause brother.