ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.
If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?
maybe this was already discussed on the forum, but I swear the reaction is classic.
Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline.
Christianity and homosexuality
Moderator: Moderators
Post #71
Hello Micatala,
“I think it is fair to say that homosexuality is not completely determined by genetics. However, this does not mean there is no genetic component. One study of twins separated at birth I have seen indicated that roughly 50% of the time, when one twin was gay, so was the other. This is not 100%, of course, but it still strongly indicates that genetics plays some role.
I will point out that a similar study of left-handedness showed that in 80% of cases where one twin was left-handed, the other was also. Stronger than for homosexuality but still not 100%.” – Micatala
You correctly point out that if genetics played any role whatsoever, then 100% of all those would be gay.
As this is not true, it clearly indicates that genetics plays no role.
In addition, if this is the same study I am familiar with (and you have not indicated exactly which study this is) then the percentages of gay twins is artificially high as the need for subjects in this study was only advertised in gay publications and not to the general population at large.
“Now, would we EVER suggest that left-handedness is not natural, that it is only a 'develpmental' phenomenon, that it is not an in-born characteristic, that people should attempt to be 'cured' of it? Most people would consider such suggestions ridiculous, and I would say the same thing to suggestions that we should approach homosexuality by focusing on trying to 'cure' people.” – Micatala
While it is not my intention to be rude, it is ridiculas to compare being homosexual with “left-handedness”. There is no comparison on any level.
“In fact, in many instances people did try to 'cure' their children or pupils of the 'anomaly' of being left-handed. Did they succeed? Well, yes sometimes they coerced the children into writing, eating, etc. with their right hand. However, they were never 'cured' of being left-handed, they simply adapted to an outside pressure without ever 'losing' their innate characteristic.
Same thing with gays, in the vast majority of circumstances. We should stop this mis-guided and harmful approach, stop denying what we do know about homosexuality, and stop citing anecdotal evidence of those who 'claim' to have been cured as trumping the vast majority of testimonies of gays who know better.” – Micatala
Those who seek to be cured have sought to do so on their own and have not been “coerced” into doing so. As such, why do you consider this to be “misguided”. And why do you consider the testimony of thousands who have overcome same-sex desires as “anecdotal”? I would call it conclusive.
“I think it is fair to say that homosexuality is not completely determined by genetics. However, this does not mean there is no genetic component. One study of twins separated at birth I have seen indicated that roughly 50% of the time, when one twin was gay, so was the other. This is not 100%, of course, but it still strongly indicates that genetics plays some role.
I will point out that a similar study of left-handedness showed that in 80% of cases where one twin was left-handed, the other was also. Stronger than for homosexuality but still not 100%.” – Micatala
You correctly point out that if genetics played any role whatsoever, then 100% of all those would be gay.
As this is not true, it clearly indicates that genetics plays no role.
In addition, if this is the same study I am familiar with (and you have not indicated exactly which study this is) then the percentages of gay twins is artificially high as the need for subjects in this study was only advertised in gay publications and not to the general population at large.
“Now, would we EVER suggest that left-handedness is not natural, that it is only a 'develpmental' phenomenon, that it is not an in-born characteristic, that people should attempt to be 'cured' of it? Most people would consider such suggestions ridiculous, and I would say the same thing to suggestions that we should approach homosexuality by focusing on trying to 'cure' people.” – Micatala
While it is not my intention to be rude, it is ridiculas to compare being homosexual with “left-handedness”. There is no comparison on any level.
“In fact, in many instances people did try to 'cure' their children or pupils of the 'anomaly' of being left-handed. Did they succeed? Well, yes sometimes they coerced the children into writing, eating, etc. with their right hand. However, they were never 'cured' of being left-handed, they simply adapted to an outside pressure without ever 'losing' their innate characteristic.
Same thing with gays, in the vast majority of circumstances. We should stop this mis-guided and harmful approach, stop denying what we do know about homosexuality, and stop citing anecdotal evidence of those who 'claim' to have been cured as trumping the vast majority of testimonies of gays who know better.” – Micatala
Those who seek to be cured have sought to do so on their own and have not been “coerced” into doing so. As such, why do you consider this to be “misguided”. And why do you consider the testimony of thousands who have overcome same-sex desires as “anecdotal”? I would call it conclusive.
Post #72
No, this is not what I pointed out, nor is it correct.Dale wrote:Hello Micatala,
“I think it is fair to say that homosexuality is not completely determined by genetics. However, this does not mean there is no genetic component. One study of twins separated at birth I have seen indicated that roughly 50% of the time, when one twin was gay, so was the other. This is not 100%, of course, but it still strongly indicates that genetics plays some role.
I will point out that a similar study of left-handedness showed that in 80% of cases where one twin was left-handed, the other was also. Stronger than for homosexuality but still not 100%.” – Micatala
Dale wrote:You correctly point out that if genetics played any role whatsoever, then 100% of all those would be gay.
As this is not true, it clearly indicates that genetics plays no role.
If genetics played no role at all, then the percent of twins separated at birth who were both gay should be closer to the percent in the general population. This would be at the very most 10% and more like 2% to 5% from the various estimates I have seen. Since the percent for these twins was 50% and not 5%, this means genetics plays a definite role in being gay. We can argue about how significant this role is, but statisticians would say that any variable that can explain 50% of the effect in another variable would be explaining a lot.
I will see if I can find the original citation. It is certainly possible the sampling here is not random. HOwever, as I recall, these twins were all separated at birth and my understanding was that many or most of them did not have interaction with the other. How 'self-selection' could have affected the results in this case is unclear. Even if one twin did respond to an add in a gay publication, this would be unknown by the other twin and the genetic link would still be established. If both twins voluntarily selected through these means, then you might have a point.Dale wrote: In addition, if this is the same study I am familiar with (and you have not indicated exactly which study this is) then the percentages of gay twins is artificially high as the need for subjects in this study was only advertised in gay publications and not to the general population at large.
This seems a highly arbitrary and unfounded assertion. How can you assert this comparison is ridiculous or that there is no comparison? What basis do you have for this assertion? Is this simply a subjective impression that homosexuality is immoral and left-handedness is not? I don't mean to be flip, but the fact that both of these phenomonon are partially but not completely genetically determined seems absolutely relevant to the issue of the 'naturalness' of homosexuality.While it is not my intention to be rude, it is ridiculas to compare being homosexual with “left-handedness”. There is no comparison on any level.“Now, would we EVER suggest that left-handedness is not natural, that it is only a 'develpmental' phenomenon, that it is not an in-born characteristic, that people should attempt to be 'cured' of it? Most people would consider such suggestions ridiculous, and I would say the same thing to suggestions that we should approach homosexuality by focusing on trying to 'cure' people.”[/b] – Micatala
I don't want to dismiss those who honestly feel they have been cured. I admit I am skeptical as to whether they are really cured or not. My objection is really that people who object to homosexuality point to these cases and insist they have honestly been cured (ignoring the many cases where there is 'reversion') and use this testimony to ignore, denigrate, or deny those who testify that they have made Herculean efforts to be 'cured' to no avail or who are clear in their own minds that this is the way they are and they cannot change.Dale wrote:Those who seek to be cured have sought to do so on their own and have not been “coerced” into doing so. As such, why do you consider this to be “misguided”. And why do you consider the testimony of thousands who have overcome same-sex desires as “anecdotal”? I would call it conclusive.micatala wrote:“In fact, in many instances people did try to 'cure' their children or pupils of the 'anomaly' of being left-handed. Did they succeed? Well, yes sometimes they coerced the children into writing, eating, etc. with their right hand. However, they were never 'cured' of being left-handed, they simply adapted to an outside pressure without ever 'losing' their innate characteristic.
Same thing with gays, in the vast majority of circumstances. We should stop this mis-guided and harmful approach, stop denying what we do know about homosexuality, and stop citing anecdotal evidence of those who 'claim' to have been cured as trumping the vast majority of testimonies of gays who know better.” [/b]– Micatala
As far as being coerced, I have heard a lot of testimony to this effect. Teenagers who were put into 're-programming' camps to get 'un-gay' and treated shabbily while there because their parents refused to consider that gayness was not a 'choice' or something 'curable.' A lot of these people, teenagers and adults alike, eventually just went along with the program to get out of the camp.
Here is one quote from this NY times article.
and another quote"It's like checking into prison," said Brandon Tidwell, 29, who completed the adult program in 2002 but eventually rejected its teachings, reconciling his Christian beliefs with being gay.
and"Their identities are still in flux," said Dr. Jack Drescher, the chairman of the committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues of the American Psychiatric Association, which in 2000 formally rejected regimens like reparative or conversion therapy as scientifically unproven. "One serious risk for the parent to consider is that most of the people who undergo these treatments don't change. That means that most people who go through these experiences often come out feeling worse than when they went in."
The 'he' in the first sentence above is the person who runs the the reparative therapy organization described in the article.He said he does not track his success rate. Mr. Harwood, who graduated from the adult program in 1999, said that of 11 fellow former clients he has kept track of, eight once again consider themselves gay.
A success rate of 3 out of 11 is not what most people would describe as good.
In addition, Jerry Falwell is one who promotes coercion in curing gays, but certainly not the only one.
Such comments and viewpoints are one reason the APA has concerns about reparative therapy.ASHEVILLE, N.C. — Speaking at a conference of Exodus International, the largest religious group promoting the idea that gays can can change their sexual orientation, Rev. Jerry Falwell endorsed forcing gay kids into counseling designed to change their sexual orientation.
American Psychological Association wrote: Gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents follow a develop-mental path that is both similar to and quite different from that followed by heterosexual adolescents. All teenagers face certain developmental challenges, such as developing social skills, thinking about career choices, and fitting into a peer group. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth must also cope with prejudiced, discriminatory, and violent behavior and messages in their families, schools, and communities. Such behavior and messages negatively affect the health, mental health and education of lesbian, gay, and bisexual young people. These students are more likely than heterosexual students to report missing school due to fear, being threatened by other students, and having their property damaged at school.1 The promotion of "reparative therapy" and "transformational ministry" is likely to exacerbate the risk of harassment, harm, and fear.
Now, I am certainly willing to discuss what is known and what is not known about the causes for homosexuality and I would allow there is a lot we don't know. However, it seems to me that regardless of the state of our knowledge, gays deserve to have their viewpoints and experiences treated with respect and not be characterized as deceived, depraved, or diabolical as they often are. Fair is fair. Gays should enjoy equal legal rights as heterosexuals. Gays should not have expectations, moral or otherwise, placed upon them that heterosexuals would not or could not live with. Gays should not have their own testimony based on their own personal experiences ignored or denigrated in favor of others' testimonies or viewpoints, even if those other people are or claim to be gay (or ex-gay).
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Post #73
Hello Micatala,
“No, this is not what I pointed out, nor is it correct.
If genetics played no role at all, then the percent of twins separated at birth who were both gay should be closer to the percent in the general population. This would be at the very most 10% and more like 2% to 5% from the various estimates I have seen. Since the percent for these twins was 50% and not 5%, this means genetics plays a definite role in being gay. We can argue about how significant this role is, but statisticians would say that any variable that can explain 50% of the effect in another variable would be explaining a lot.” – Micatala
The study that you are referring to (I believe) was conducted by M. Bailey and J. C Pillard and showed that 52% of identical twins was gay and 22% of fraternal twins were gay. However, Bailey and Pillard only recruited subjects from homosexual publications and not from the general population. I can assure you that such a sampling technique will greatly skew any findings and conclusions and has led to the rejection of this study by peer reviews.
Another twin study by Bailey and Pillard showed that 25 percent of identical twins were homosexual and 12.5 percent of fraternal twins were homosexual (the results almost half of their original study), but even this study drew criticism. You correctly pointed out that only about 2% of the population in gay. So why would 12.5% of fraternal twins be homosexual since they share no more genetic material that other non-identical twin siblings. The numbers simply do not add up.
“This seems a highly arbitrary and unfounded assertion. How can you assert this comparison is ridiculous or that there is no comparison? What basis do you have for this assertion? Is this simply a subjective impression that homosexuality is immoral and left-handedness is not? I don't mean to be flip, but the fact that both of these phenomonon are partially but not completely genetically determined seems absolutely relevant to the issue of the 'naturalness' of homosexuality.” – Micatala
The reason I can make this assertion is that homosexuality is not genetic.
“I don't want to dismiss those who honestly feel they have been cured. I admit I am skeptical as to whether they are really cured or not. My objection is really that people who object to homosexuality point to these cases and insist they have honestly been cured (ignoring the many cases where there is 'reversion') and use this testimony to ignore, denigrate, or deny those who testify that they have made Herculean efforts to be 'cured' to no avail or who are clear in their own minds that this is the way they are and they cannot change.
As far as being coerced, I have heard a lot of testimony to this effect. Teenagers who were put into 're-programming' camps to get 'un-gay' and treated shabbily while there because their parents refused to consider that gayness was not a 'choice' or something 'curable.' A lot of these people, teenagers and adults alike, eventually just went along with the program to get out of the camp.” – Micatala
I understand the reservations you have, however, I am not talking about forcing anyone to go through some type of “ex-gay” treatment. I have assumed--correctly or incorrectly--that going through such treatment must be something like quitting smoking. You have to really want it to be successful (my apologies to anyone who thinks my comparison of ex-gay treatment and smoking is flippant. That was not my intention.). So I’m under the impression that “forcing” someone into such therapy is pointless.
However thousands have successfully overcome their same-sex desires. Not suppressed, but actually overcome.
However, this seems to be the biggest secret in the country. Can you imagine how frustrating it must be for those that want help to be told that there is neither help nor hope? That you were simply born that way and you just need to “get over it”. Isn’t this cruel?
“Such comments and viewpoints are one reason the APA has concerns about reparative therapy.” – Micatala
In 1973 the APA removed homosexuality from it’s list of mental disorders based upon political pressure and not because of some scientific discovery that suggested that it was something other than a mental / emotional disorder. Today, the APA has a committee among its ranks that reviews and approves all material published by the APA that deals with homosexual issues. If the APA were truly the scientific organization it would have us to believe that it is, then why not simply publish the science based upon its own merits? Why must it be approved for public consumption by a pro-gay committee?
In other words, the APA is not the most reliable of sources for this issue.
And again, it also ignores the thousands that have been successfully treated.
“I don't want to dismiss those who honestly feel they have been cured. I admit I am skeptical as to whether they are really cured or not. My objection is really that people who object to homosexuality point to these cases and insist they have honestly been cured (ignoring the many cases where there is 'reversion') and use this testimony to ignore, denigrate, or deny those who testify that they have made Herculean efforts to be 'cured' to no avail or who are clear in their own minds that this is the way they are and they cannot change.” – Micatala
From the testimonies that I’ve heard about those who have successfully transitioned, even they admit that it is a difficult process and confess to some “setbacks”. I do not doubt that they have struggled and that it has been difficult. But they also testify that their struggles were worth it.
“Now, I am certainly willing to discuss what is known and what is not known about the causes for homosexuality and I would allow there is a lot we don't know. However, it seems to me that regardless of the state of our knowledge, gays deserve to have their viewpoints and experiences treated with respect and not be characterized as deceived, depraved, or diabolical as they often are.” - Micatala
All should be treated with decency, courteously and respect.
“Fair is fair. Gays should enjoy equal legal rights as heterosexuals.” - Micatala
They have the exact same rights that you and I enjoy.
“Gays should not have expectations, moral or otherwise, placed upon them that heterosexuals would not or could not live with. Gays should not have their own testimony based on their own personal experiences ignored or denigrated in favor of others' testimonies or viewpoints, even if those other people are or claim to be gay (or ex-gay).” – Micatala
I don’t think that by sharing the testimony of one group (ex-gay) that another group (gay) would have to be “ignored or denigrated”. It seems to me that there is enough room in this discussion for both views.
“No, this is not what I pointed out, nor is it correct.
If genetics played no role at all, then the percent of twins separated at birth who were both gay should be closer to the percent in the general population. This would be at the very most 10% and more like 2% to 5% from the various estimates I have seen. Since the percent for these twins was 50% and not 5%, this means genetics plays a definite role in being gay. We can argue about how significant this role is, but statisticians would say that any variable that can explain 50% of the effect in another variable would be explaining a lot.” – Micatala
The study that you are referring to (I believe) was conducted by M. Bailey and J. C Pillard and showed that 52% of identical twins was gay and 22% of fraternal twins were gay. However, Bailey and Pillard only recruited subjects from homosexual publications and not from the general population. I can assure you that such a sampling technique will greatly skew any findings and conclusions and has led to the rejection of this study by peer reviews.
Another twin study by Bailey and Pillard showed that 25 percent of identical twins were homosexual and 12.5 percent of fraternal twins were homosexual (the results almost half of their original study), but even this study drew criticism. You correctly pointed out that only about 2% of the population in gay. So why would 12.5% of fraternal twins be homosexual since they share no more genetic material that other non-identical twin siblings. The numbers simply do not add up.
“This seems a highly arbitrary and unfounded assertion. How can you assert this comparison is ridiculous or that there is no comparison? What basis do you have for this assertion? Is this simply a subjective impression that homosexuality is immoral and left-handedness is not? I don't mean to be flip, but the fact that both of these phenomonon are partially but not completely genetically determined seems absolutely relevant to the issue of the 'naturalness' of homosexuality.” – Micatala
The reason I can make this assertion is that homosexuality is not genetic.
“I don't want to dismiss those who honestly feel they have been cured. I admit I am skeptical as to whether they are really cured or not. My objection is really that people who object to homosexuality point to these cases and insist they have honestly been cured (ignoring the many cases where there is 'reversion') and use this testimony to ignore, denigrate, or deny those who testify that they have made Herculean efforts to be 'cured' to no avail or who are clear in their own minds that this is the way they are and they cannot change.
As far as being coerced, I have heard a lot of testimony to this effect. Teenagers who were put into 're-programming' camps to get 'un-gay' and treated shabbily while there because their parents refused to consider that gayness was not a 'choice' or something 'curable.' A lot of these people, teenagers and adults alike, eventually just went along with the program to get out of the camp.” – Micatala
I understand the reservations you have, however, I am not talking about forcing anyone to go through some type of “ex-gay” treatment. I have assumed--correctly or incorrectly--that going through such treatment must be something like quitting smoking. You have to really want it to be successful (my apologies to anyone who thinks my comparison of ex-gay treatment and smoking is flippant. That was not my intention.). So I’m under the impression that “forcing” someone into such therapy is pointless.
However thousands have successfully overcome their same-sex desires. Not suppressed, but actually overcome.
However, this seems to be the biggest secret in the country. Can you imagine how frustrating it must be for those that want help to be told that there is neither help nor hope? That you were simply born that way and you just need to “get over it”. Isn’t this cruel?
“Such comments and viewpoints are one reason the APA has concerns about reparative therapy.” – Micatala
In 1973 the APA removed homosexuality from it’s list of mental disorders based upon political pressure and not because of some scientific discovery that suggested that it was something other than a mental / emotional disorder. Today, the APA has a committee among its ranks that reviews and approves all material published by the APA that deals with homosexual issues. If the APA were truly the scientific organization it would have us to believe that it is, then why not simply publish the science based upon its own merits? Why must it be approved for public consumption by a pro-gay committee?
In other words, the APA is not the most reliable of sources for this issue.
And again, it also ignores the thousands that have been successfully treated.
“I don't want to dismiss those who honestly feel they have been cured. I admit I am skeptical as to whether they are really cured or not. My objection is really that people who object to homosexuality point to these cases and insist they have honestly been cured (ignoring the many cases where there is 'reversion') and use this testimony to ignore, denigrate, or deny those who testify that they have made Herculean efforts to be 'cured' to no avail or who are clear in their own minds that this is the way they are and they cannot change.” – Micatala
From the testimonies that I’ve heard about those who have successfully transitioned, even they admit that it is a difficult process and confess to some “setbacks”. I do not doubt that they have struggled and that it has been difficult. But they also testify that their struggles were worth it.
“Now, I am certainly willing to discuss what is known and what is not known about the causes for homosexuality and I would allow there is a lot we don't know. However, it seems to me that regardless of the state of our knowledge, gays deserve to have their viewpoints and experiences treated with respect and not be characterized as deceived, depraved, or diabolical as they often are.” - Micatala
All should be treated with decency, courteously and respect.
“Fair is fair. Gays should enjoy equal legal rights as heterosexuals.” - Micatala
They have the exact same rights that you and I enjoy.
“Gays should not have expectations, moral or otherwise, placed upon them that heterosexuals would not or could not live with. Gays should not have their own testimony based on their own personal experiences ignored or denigrated in favor of others' testimonies or viewpoints, even if those other people are or claim to be gay (or ex-gay).” – Micatala
I don’t think that by sharing the testimony of one group (ex-gay) that another group (gay) would have to be “ignored or denigrated”. It seems to me that there is enough room in this discussion for both views.
Post #74
Hello again. I don't have too much time so I will address just a couple of items now and hope to get back to the others soon.
Also, look at the flip side. Is it not cruel to insist that a person's inborn gayness is just a 'sickness' or 'alterable condition' that they can overcome and use religion to coerce them into attempting this when in fact it is not likely to work?
If people actually want to, of their own free an uncoerced will, attempt this change than that is fine. My problem is that many people who undergo this treatment are not really doing so of their own free will. They are also given unrealistic hope as far as the possbility of actual change.
Even more concerning to me is that many who promote such therapy try to use the examples of those who claim to be cured to insist that this means ALL homosexuals can be and should be cured. In my view this is false and pernicious, and it is a prevalent view in many Christian circles. Again, this view denies the testimony and experiences of huge numbers of gays who know in their hearts that this is just part of who they are and it is not going to change.
It would be like saying because some people can change their handedness, it therefore must be possible for all and all should attempt it, even be forced to attempt a la Jerry Falwell's view.
I know you are not promoting this extreme of a view. However, it does exist and is quite widespread.
In my view, suggesting all gays can and should undergo reparative therapy is not treating gays with respect. People who do this are putting their own opinion over the opinion and experience of those who would actually be undergoing the therapy. Again, this does not seem to be your position, but it is the position of a significant number of people.
I certainly am not going to claim that no one has ever had a true change from same-sex desires to heterosexual. However, I think that suppression rather than actual change is quite prevalent, if not the norm. Again, consider this quote from Mr. Smid.Dale wrote: However thousands have successfully overcome their same-sex desires. Not suppressed, but actually overcome.
This does not sound like 'total conversion' to me. It sounds like a person who has trained themselves to behave and yes think differently. But the inborn impulse is still there. Just as with handedness, with motivation and practice, a person can train themselves to 'switch hands' and perhaps even become as skillful with the second hand as the first. However, the inborn characteristic has not gone away.The goal of the program, said Mr. Smid, who said he was once gay but now renounces homosexual behavior, is not necessarily to turn gays into practicing heterosexuals, but to "put guardrails" on their sexual impulses.
"In my life I've been out of homosexuality for over 20 years, and for me it's really a nonissue," Mr. Smid said.
"I may see a man and say, he's handsome, he's attractive, and it might touch a part of me that is different from someone else," he said. "But it's really not an issue. Gosh, I've been married for 16 years and faithful in my marriage in every respect. I mean I don't think I could white-knuckle this ride for that long."
Well, yes if you wanted to change and had trouble doing it and was told it was probably not possible that would be frustrating. ON the other hand, this happens to people all the time for all sorts of reasons. If a person has a food allergy and is not able to eat certain foods even though she would absolutley love to, would the doctor be being cruel to tell this person they simply have to accept their condition? Wouldn't it be much less cruel to give them the most realistic advice rather than give them a false hope and attempt a cure that is probably not going to work and may actually harm them?However, this seems to be the biggest secret in the country. Can you imagine how frustrating it must be for those that want help to be told that there is neither help nor hope? That you were simply born that way and you just need to “get over it”. Isn’t this cruel?
Also, look at the flip side. Is it not cruel to insist that a person's inborn gayness is just a 'sickness' or 'alterable condition' that they can overcome and use religion to coerce them into attempting this when in fact it is not likely to work?
If people actually want to, of their own free an uncoerced will, attempt this change than that is fine. My problem is that many people who undergo this treatment are not really doing so of their own free will. They are also given unrealistic hope as far as the possbility of actual change.
Even more concerning to me is that many who promote such therapy try to use the examples of those who claim to be cured to insist that this means ALL homosexuals can be and should be cured. In my view this is false and pernicious, and it is a prevalent view in many Christian circles. Again, this view denies the testimony and experiences of huge numbers of gays who know in their hearts that this is just part of who they are and it is not going to change.
It would be like saying because some people can change their handedness, it therefore must be possible for all and all should attempt it, even be forced to attempt a la Jerry Falwell's view.
I know you are not promoting this extreme of a view. However, it does exist and is quite widespread.
Agreed.All should be treated with decency, courteously and respect.
In my view, suggesting all gays can and should undergo reparative therapy is not treating gays with respect. People who do this are putting their own opinion over the opinion and experience of those who would actually be undergoing the therapy. Again, this does not seem to be your position, but it is the position of a significant number of people.
Gays do not have the right to marry or have their long-term relationships recognized in the same way heterosexual couples do. Thus, they do not enjoy the same rights. In some areas, although this has changed a great deal, they do not have equal access to employment.They have the exact same rights that you and I enjoy.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #77
Hum. I have never known a beast to be a consenting adult.Fisherking wrote:Do those that believe homosexuality is natural have any problem with individuals practicing beastiality as a natural sexual desire?
Please don't read anything into my question. My position is that both are un-natural. If homosexual behavior is natural, why not beastiality?
-
AClockWorkOrange
- Scholar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:07 pm
- Location: Alaska
Post #78
not have i heard of interspecies sex being very prevelent in the animal kingdom.
gay dog/cat/monkey/anything with a hole sex?
all the time...
gay dog/cat/monkey/anything with a hole sex?
all the time...
-
AClockWorkOrange
- Scholar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:07 pm
- Location: Alaska
Post #79
Hello Dale
a BIG aspect of science is humility, the idea that maybe our ideas are wrong, so they are open to scrupulous edit.
This is where religion falters, in its aperent unwillingness to evolve (just as a side note, things that cannot evolve to a changing environment, die).
then that brings us to another fun point. While chrisitianity refuses to edit its main aspects, it does however discard others. An easy example is how Christians do not follow Moses' law.
Another easy example of change: The Council of Nicea
you understand that omnipotence is a logical fallacy, right?
i dont want to bring up the immovable object irresistable force argument, but it is valid.
So if God is illogically Omnipotent, then we as inatley logical beings have to deny our logic, and believe in the illogical. A being who creates us to believe in something we by our nature should not, then that does not deserve worship, even if it exists.
ambiguity does that.
wow, this is out of context.
to which i responded "more like bigotry"
Nulling other's ideals and claiming your own (or "Gods") as absolute is completly intolerant of others, and is by definition: Bigotry.
For two, i cite the diferences in culture as a lack of universal morality.
Each culture, though bearing similiar qualities, developed differently, obviously from their different socialogic needs.
Homosexuality is fround upon more in early nomadic tribes than in larger communities, becuase of population issues; theft has carried different weight to it depending on sociatal situations, slavery has been forbade and condoned in depending on its veiw of other peoples and human rights.
“it is natural in that sexual desire is natural” - AClockWorkOrange
you equated homosexuality to a defect. That is intolerance.
are you familiar with a character named "Uncle Ruckus" from a cominc strip/ cartoon show called "The Boondocks"?
He is a black character who hates other black people.
the testimony of people who happen to have been gay that is opposed to the gay lifestyle does not sway me much , in that their was supposed to be some validation in their opinions by the fact they are/were gay.
Uncle Ruckus is not correct in saying black people are inferior by virtue of hes black.
Stephen is not right in saying Gay people are defected and also "curable" of their" disease" by virue of the fact that he is/ was gay.
i wasnt questioning Aplogetics actions, i was questioning the bases of their knowledge. Faith by definition is something excepted without evidence, so literally, apologetics only source of God that is physical, is the singular and highly flawed Bible. The lack of other sources that hold any physical evidence of their position is something everyone should be wary of.I’m not sure what you’re calling “competent” but I will respectfully disagree with you on this point. Apologetics have changed lives by bringing people to a saving knowledge of their Lord and Savior. The evidence is as plentiful as it is overwhelming.
Truth tends to have a liberal bias.They appear to be nothing more than severely biased views from apparently some very bitter people. Shame.
thanks for the anglefire.com site, im sure that has incredible scruples.“And much of the “age of the earth evidence” had already been debunked years ago.” – Dale
“such as?” – AClockWorkOrange
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
Agree or disagree, there is a lot of debate on this issue…still.
“I’m sorry. But a “text book” is just not going to provide you with the truth” – Dale
“your statement is interchangable with the bible.
the difference is that the content of science text books are subject to change *as you noted* and all content is also subject to testing and scrutiny; whereas the bases of the bible is not by its followers.” – AClockWorkOrange
You’ve misunderstood what I was trying to say. In any event, you are correct when you say that the Bible cannot be changed. The truth is not subject to change.
a BIG aspect of science is humility, the idea that maybe our ideas are wrong, so they are open to scrupulous edit.
This is where religion falters, in its aperent unwillingness to evolve (just as a side note, things that cannot evolve to a changing environment, die).
then that brings us to another fun point. While chrisitianity refuses to edit its main aspects, it does however discard others. An easy example is how Christians do not follow Moses' law.
Another easy example of change: The Council of Nicea
alright, then lets work with this definition“these arguments are based on christian definitions of god.
please, for the sake of argument, define your god.
how can i argue your point if i dont understand it?
you saying "i believe in god" right now is equal to saying "the mimsy went to time table"
nonsense.” – AClockWorkOrange
I believe God to be exactly what the Bible says He is. Perfect, holy, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, one God in three persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Creator of all things and everything else the Bible says He is.
Does this help?
you understand that omnipotence is a logical fallacy, right?
i dont want to bring up the immovable object irresistable force argument, but it is valid.
So if God is illogically Omnipotent, then we as inatley logical beings have to deny our logic, and believe in the illogical. A being who creates us to believe in something we by our nature should not, then that does not deserve worship, even if it exists.
and yet, Jesus preaches a continued practice of Moses' law in the Beatitudes.I couldn’t disagree with you more. Calling yourself a Christian doesn’t make it so. But for the sake of clarity I will offer a definition. A Christian is someone who believes that God came to this world (in the form of Jesus) and lived a sinless life and was crucified as a substitutionary sacrifice on the Cross for the forgiveness of sin and was raised bodily back to life three days later. It is by this belief…and only this belief…that we are saved and have a place in Heaven.
it didnt.A bit simplistic but that should do.
harsh wordsMormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christian.
no, there are over a thousand contending christian denominations.I am not familiar with “Christian Sect” so I can’t comment. But I dare say there are far fewer than the “several thousand” Christian denominations you claim there to be.
ambiguity does that.
how? what God promised the jews never happened. Jesus's desciples changed it completly.Yes, the Old Covenant in completely different from the New Covenant in every respect and simply enhances its “continuity”.
how do you figure? the new covenant (Deal) is by DEFINITION different that the originol covenant (deal).In fact, if there were no New Covenant, the rest of the Bible would become suspect as it was prophesized.
so if i find fault, i immediatly dont understand?Why do you contend then that there is “something iffy about the bible”? I’m really having a bit of difficulty in understanding your point here and it makes me wonder if you have any real understanding of the Bible.
“What used to be called a felony, pedophiles now refer to as "inter-generational love".
Nice, huh?” – Dale
“less nice, closer to bigotry.” – AClockWorkOrange
I don’t get it. Why is this bigotry?
wow, this is out of context.
God’s values are unchanging. What was wrong 5,000 years ago remains wrong today. And what was good 5,000 years ago is still considered good by God today.
By comparison, man’s values are in constant flux. His values are always changing to the next politically correct whim. Man can even justify evil. A pedophile doesn’t really hurt a child when he molest him. Oh no!! He’s really just “loving” him.
Yea, right.
So without a firm grounding of morals based upon God’s teaching, what man does would ultimately never be “wrong” as his values are always changes to excuse his behavior. Take my example above. What used to be called a felony, pedophiles now refer to as "inter-generational love".
Nice, huh?
to which i responded "more like bigotry"
Nulling other's ideals and claiming your own (or "Gods") as absolute is completly intolerant of others, and is by definition: Bigotry.
for one, Values=Morality.“mans values devolops from nesecity.” – AClockWorkOrange
I am more inclined to believe that man’s “values” develop more on a whim without any sound moral grounding, but I may not have considered every point. Do you have any examples you can share where man’s “values” developed out of necessity?
For two, i cite the diferences in culture as a lack of universal morality.
Each culture, though bearing similiar qualities, developed differently, obviously from their different socialogic needs.
Homosexuality is fround upon more in early nomadic tribes than in larger communities, becuase of population issues; theft has carried different weight to it depending on sociatal situations, slavery has been forbade and condoned in depending on its veiw of other peoples and human rights.
“it is natural in that sexual desire is natural” - AClockWorkOrange
then so is heterosexuality, where is your point?Sexual desire is natural but sexual behavior is just that--a behavior. And behaviors are learned.
2% who are now openly Gay, after coming out of centuries of oppression, i am not surprised such a low amount (thousands) are open.“Two common factors (but not universal factors) found that most homosexuals had poor parent-child relationships and / or there was some form of sexual abuse present.” – Dale
“and all straight people have sparkling childhoods?” – AClockWorkOrange
Of course not. But we are talking about a rarely occurring event that affects only about 2% of the population.
i would not think less of myself if i were gay; there was no bullet to be dodged.“my child hood sucked, and i still ended up attracted to girls.” - AClockWorkOrange
Whew!!
ive known at least thirty kids under ten who have same sex attraction.“often, abuses and neglect are a reaction to a childs homesexuality, not a cuase.” – AClockWorkOrange
How many young kids do you know that are homosexual? Personally, I don’t know any. Never have. And the age at which this is affected is so young I fail to see how even the child could know or even understand that he was “homosexual”.
“So to say that someone is homosexual because that’s what they “naturally” are is incorrect. People are homosexual because something has gone wrong in their development.” – Dale
“this strikes me as out of line. not just that it conflicts with the reality of the lives of gay friends of mine, but it just smacks of bigotry.
take a step back, and really read that phrase.
"your gay becuase your development was wrong".
whoa.” – AClockWorkOrange
Bigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
you equated homosexuality to a defect. That is intolerance.
In addition, your comments ignore the testimony of people like Stephen Bennett, Joe Dallas and thousands of others that have received help and no longer have same sex desires. And these same wonderful people speak of having difficult childhoods leading to developmental problems. It would seem to me that these folks would be the ultimate experts and I’m only repeating the things that they have already said.
How is this bigoted?
are you familiar with a character named "Uncle Ruckus" from a cominc strip/ cartoon show called "The Boondocks"?
He is a black character who hates other black people.
the testimony of people who happen to have been gay that is opposed to the gay lifestyle does not sway me much , in that their was supposed to be some validation in their opinions by the fact they are/were gay.
Uncle Ruckus is not correct in saying black people are inferior by virtue of hes black.
Stephen is not right in saying Gay people are defected and also "curable" of their" disease" by virue of the fact that he is/ was gay.
Post #80
BOUT TIME YOU SHOW UP! All these debates I get involved in, I figured I was stealing your thunder. lol.AClockWorkOrange wrote:Hello Dale
i wasnt questioning Aplogetics actions, i was questioning the bases of their knowledge. Faith by definition is something excepted without evidence, so literally, apologetics only source of God that is physical, is the singular and highly flawed Bible. The lack of other sources that hold any physical evidence of their position is something everyone should be wary of.I’m not sure what you’re calling “competent” but I will respectfully disagree with you on this point. Apologetics have changed lives by bringing people to a saving knowledge of their Lord and Savior. The evidence is as plentiful as it is overwhelming.
Truth tends to have a liberal bias.They appear to be nothing more than severely biased views from apparently some very bitter people. Shame.
thanks for the anglefire.com site, im sure that has incredible scruples.“And much of the “age of the earth evidence” had already been debunked years ago.” – Dale
“such as?” – AClockWorkOrange
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
Agree or disagree, there is a lot of debate on this issue…still.
“I’m sorry. But a “text book” is just not going to provide you with the truth” – Dale
“your statement is interchangable with the bible.
the difference is that the content of science text books are subject to change *as you noted* and all content is also subject to testing and scrutiny; whereas the bases of the bible is not by its followers.” – AClockWorkOrange
You’ve misunderstood what I was trying to say. In any event, you are correct when you say that the Bible cannot be changed. The truth is not subject to change.
a BIG aspect of science is humility, the idea that maybe our ideas are wrong, so they are open to scrupulous edit.
This is where religion falters, in its aperent unwillingness to evolve (just as a side note, things that cannot evolve to a changing environment, die).
then that brings us to another fun point. While chrisitianity refuses to edit its main aspects, it does however discard others. An easy example is how Christians do not follow Moses' law.
Another easy example of change: The Council of Nicea
alright, then lets work with this definition“these arguments are based on christian definitions of god.
please, for the sake of argument, define your god.
how can i argue your point if i dont understand it?
you saying "i believe in god" right now is equal to saying "the mimsy went to time table"
nonsense.” – AClockWorkOrange
I believe God to be exactly what the Bible says He is. Perfect, holy, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, one God in three persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Creator of all things and everything else the Bible says He is.
Does this help?
you understand that omnipotence is a logical fallacy, right?
i dont want to bring up the immovable object irresistable force argument, but it is valid.
So if God is illogically Omnipotent, then we as inatley logical beings have to deny our logic, and believe in the illogical. A being who creates us to believe in something we by our nature should not, then that does not deserve worship, even if it exists.
and yet, Jesus preaches a continued practice of Moses' law in the Beatitudes.I couldn’t disagree with you more. Calling yourself a Christian doesn’t make it so. But for the sake of clarity I will offer a definition. A Christian is someone who believes that God came to this world (in the form of Jesus) and lived a sinless life and was crucified as a substitutionary sacrifice on the Cross for the forgiveness of sin and was raised bodily back to life three days later. It is by this belief…and only this belief…that we are saved and have a place in Heaven.
it didnt.A bit simplistic but that should do.
harsh wordsMormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christian.
no, there are over a thousand contending christian denominations.I am not familiar with “Christian Sect” so I can’t comment. But I dare say there are far fewer than the “several thousand” Christian denominations you claim there to be.
ambiguity does that.
how? what God promised the jews never happened. Jesus's desciples changed it completly.Yes, the Old Covenant in completely different from the New Covenant in every respect and simply enhances its “continuity”.
how do you figure? the new covenant (Deal) is by DEFINITION different that the originol covenant (deal).In fact, if there were no New Covenant, the rest of the Bible would become suspect as it was prophesized.
so if i find fault, i immediatly dont understand?Why do you contend then that there is “something iffy about the bible”? I’m really having a bit of difficulty in understanding your point here and it makes me wonder if you have any real understanding of the Bible.
“What used to be called a felony, pedophiles now refer to as "inter-generational love".
Nice, huh?” – Dale
“less nice, closer to bigotry.” – AClockWorkOrange
I don’t get it. Why is this bigotry?
wow, this is out of context.
God’s values are unchanging. What was wrong 5,000 years ago remains wrong today. And what was good 5,000 years ago is still considered good by God today.
By comparison, man’s values are in constant flux. His values are always changing to the next politically correct whim. Man can even justify evil. A pedophile doesn’t really hurt a child when he molest him. Oh no!! He’s really just “loving” him.
Yea, right.
So without a firm grounding of morals based upon God’s teaching, what man does would ultimately never be “wrong” as his values are always changes to excuse his behavior. Take my example above. What used to be called a felony, pedophiles now refer to as "inter-generational love".
Nice, huh?
to which i responded "more like bigotry"
Nulling other's ideals and claiming your own (or "Gods") as absolute is completly intolerant of others, and is by definition: Bigotry.
for one, Values=Morality.“mans values devolops from nesecity.” – AClockWorkOrange
I am more inclined to believe that man’s “values” develop more on a whim without any sound moral grounding, but I may not have considered every point. Do you have any examples you can share where man’s “values” developed out of necessity?
For two, i cite the diferences in culture as a lack of universal morality.
Each culture, though bearing similiar qualities, developed differently, obviously from their different socialogic needs.
Homosexuality is fround upon more in early nomadic tribes than in larger communities, becuase of population issues; theft has carried different weight to it depending on sociatal situations, slavery has been forbade and condoned in depending on its veiw of other peoples and human rights.
“it is natural in that sexual desire is natural” - AClockWorkOrange
then so is heterosexuality, where is your point?Sexual desire is natural but sexual behavior is just that--a behavior. And behaviors are learned.
2% who are now openly Gay, after coming out of centuries of oppression, i am not surprised such a low amount (thousands) are open.“Two common factors (but not universal factors) found that most homosexuals had poor parent-child relationships and / or there was some form of sexual abuse present.” – Dale
“and all straight people have sparkling childhoods?” – AClockWorkOrange
Of course not. But we are talking about a rarely occurring event that affects only about 2% of the population.
i would not think less of myself if i were gay; there was no bullet to be dodged.“my child hood sucked, and i still ended up attracted to girls.” - AClockWorkOrange
Whew!!
ive known at least thirty kids under ten who have same sex attraction.“often, abuses and neglect are a reaction to a childs homesexuality, not a cuase.” – AClockWorkOrange
How many young kids do you know that are homosexual? Personally, I don’t know any. Never have. And the age at which this is affected is so young I fail to see how even the child could know or even understand that he was “homosexual”.
“So to say that someone is homosexual because that’s what they “naturally” are is incorrect. People are homosexual because something has gone wrong in their development.” – Dale
“this strikes me as out of line. not just that it conflicts with the reality of the lives of gay friends of mine, but it just smacks of bigotry.
take a step back, and really read that phrase.
"your gay becuase your development was wrong".
whoa.” – AClockWorkOrangeBigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
you equated homosexuality to a defect. That is intolerance.
In addition, your comments ignore the testimony of people like Stephen Bennett, Joe Dallas and thousands of others that have received help and no longer have same sex desires. And these same wonderful people speak of having difficult childhoods leading to developmental problems. It would seem to me that these folks would be the ultimate experts and I’m only repeating the things that they have already said.How is this bigoted?
are you familiar with a character named "Uncle Ruckus" from a cominc strip/ cartoon show called "The Boondocks"?
He is a black character who hates other black people.
the testimony of people who happen to have been gay that is opposed to the gay lifestyle does not sway me much , in that their was supposed to be some validation in their opinions by the fact they are/were gay.
Uncle Ruckus is not correct in saying black people are inferior by virtue of hes black.
Stephen is not right in saying Gay people are defected and also "curable" of their" disease" by virue of the fact that he is/ was gay.
And if anyone out there is that of uncle ruckus, I want to meet him. That show's great....and discontinued.
