|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 0:09:13 GMT -5
Hey, guys. I have no intention of upsetting, or being inflammatory, or even becoming a long-standing member of this board, but a friend pointed me to this place and I wanted to address something: Is homosexuality a natural affection? Of course you will say yes, for some who are born that way. So the question is this, are som people born homosexual? NO, how can they be? Prove to me through scinece then, since I presume you are an atheist, or agnostic, that sodomites are born that way. Actually, there's a lot of evidence for that. Twin studies indicate a genetic link--identical twins raised apart are more likely to be homosexual than fraternal twins. The correlations that I have offhand are 52% for identical, 22% for fraternal, and 9% for non-twin (Bailey and Pillard). Also, Dr. Simon LeVay found hypothalamic differences between the homosexual and heterosexual male brains in his 1991 study. I'd also point out that the organizations that claim to be able to "cure" homosexuality are seldom successful. Finally, homosexuality isn't a mental disorder. It's been off the DSM since 1973. I'm not going to even address the other points brought up in this thread because it doesn't really matter: believe what you will, but please don't be ignorant about it. The generally accepted, scientific stance on homosexuality is that it is due to a number of factors, some of them nature and some nurture--and while we don't know the exact interaction, "choice" can pretty much be ruled out. From that, feel free to draw any conclusions that you want...for that matter, feel free to draw any conclusions about my motives or beliefs, because I'm not going to state them. I'd think passionate people such as yourselves would surely be seekers of knowledge, and would therefore want to know all the facts before interpreting them. It's certainly the way I try to live my life. Anyway, scientific reasoning was asked for, and while I am most certainly not an expert on the matter (I'm just a student), I provided a bit of what I know. I would be happy to discuss this further if there is interest and the responses can avoid some of the argumentum ad hominem undertones I've seen in this thread so far. I appreciate your comments, but God's Word overrides "science" and real science affirms God's Word. There is also supposed "evidence" that people can be born with more of a propensity to be violent. Should we now accept them as they are and make excuses for them killing people? If someone says they feel like they are born a murderer, should we just allow them to murder away? I know this may seem like an extreme example, but it is what I could come up with on short notice
|
|
|
Post by Valentine on Apr 7, 2006 0:19:06 GMT -5
I appreciate your comments, but God's Word overrides "science" and real science affirms God's Word. There is also supposed "evidence" that people can be born with more of a propensity to be violent. Should we now accept them as they are and make excuses for them killing people? If someone says they feel like they are born a murderer, should we just allow them to murder away? I know this may seem like an extreme example, but it is what I could come up with on short notice Where is that information coming from? Who determined it? The idea's not ringing a bell to me. I'd like to see proper documentation of a legitimate study, if you wouldn't mind. (If you would like sources for any of my information, just ask. You can also visit the American Psychological Association's website for some good reads: http://www.APA.org) I have no problem with opinions, but maintaining an opinion in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary seems like a foolish thing to me.
|
|
|
Post by Valentine on Apr 7, 2006 0:29:20 GMT -5
I apologize to double post, but I can't edit, not being a member--and this is important.
It actually doesn't matter what your opinion on this is, because I'm not trying to tell you how to interpret what I'm saying. The general request was made to provide scientific facts regarding how a person's sexuality is determined, so I provided some. I said nothing about what to do with them. I'm not using this as an argument to either affirm or deny that homosexuality is a sin. I'm not even arguing. Y'all wanted some facts, so I told you what I know.
Therefore, you can see how it's really irrelavent whether or not there are actually studies saying that people a born with the tendency to murder. If there were such studies, their existence says nothing about whether you personally think murder is okay...and the studies aren't going to go away just because murder is an act that most regard as unacceptable. It's merely a study that found a genetic link to violent tendencies (hypothetically, of course, because I know of no such study). We don't even know if this is a valid study yet!
Long story short: woah there, don't jump to conclusions. I told you what reputable scientists found to be true. Do whatever you want with that information.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 7, 2006 1:06:07 GMT -5
I appreciate your comments, but God's Word overrides "science" and real science affirms God's Word. There is also supposed "evidence" that people can be born with more of a propensity to be violent. Should we now accept them as they are and make excuses for them killing people? If someone says they feel like they are born a murderer, should we just allow them to murder away? I know this may seem like an extreme example, but it is what I could come up with on short notice First off, science and religion seek to answer different questions. Religion asks the question "why?", science asks the question "how?" What I mean by that can be seen in the example of the creation story. Before I start, however, a discussion of creationism is inappropriate in this forum, so try to focus on the reasoning in my argument and not the example I choose. In Christianity, we are given the story of creation. The Bible tells us that God made the Earth in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. Science tells us that the Earth is much older than what is allowed under creationism scenarios. How then can we reconcile such paradoxes? We must understand that the creation story is not put in the Bible to tell us how the Earth is the way it is, but rather why it is. What I mean is that we can glean much from the creation story outside of the methodology by which the Earth was "created." For instance, we believe that God creates order from chaos, divides good from evil, so on and so forth, regardless of whether the creation is actually true. Another example: there is a story in the Bible where the sun is commanded to stop in the sky so that the Jews have time to destroy an enemy before nightfall, which it does. The church used this story for years to claim that Earth was the center of the universe. We now know that the Earth is not the center of the universe, but God's word doesn't override the fact that we can see that through science. So long as religion and science ask different questions, they are not mutually exclusive. Second, you are right. Using murder is and extreme example. Whenever people on this message board condemn homosexuality, they always compare it to crimes where a victim is involved. In murder, a person kills another person. In pedophilia, a person sexually abuses (without consent) another person. In homosexual relationships between two consenting adults, no one is harmed. Also, I believe you are correct. Persons with a propensity to murder do exist. These people are considered to be mentally unstable. If they use the genetic predisposition defense in court, they will be committed to a mental institution until such time as they are no longer a danger to themself or others. The difference is that homosexuality does not harm one, whereas the other things mentioned on this board do. I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 7, 2006 8:02:40 GMT -5
That is not true. This may blow your mind, but not all sin is even forgivable.
1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 7, 2006 9:49:46 GMT -5
Oh wow.... I take a few days off to catch up on work and holy hell breaks loose. I don't think I'll respond to each post this time... which is good because I see a lot of the exact same topics being used that I've already addressed numerous times with little reasonable response.
Let's start from the end and go up until I get bored or have to go to Yoga!
That is not true. This may blow your mind, but not all sin is even forgivable.
1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Maybe you can't forgive what can't be repented for? This has 0 implications for justifying a difference in the weight of a sin.
Wanderingtrekker: Very good point. I've always understood it as "Science offers big answers to little questions while religion offers little answers to big questions." Both are sources of truth.
Hmmm.... interesting debate between Valentine and Rev K. This thought just came to me, what do you think: If life was made by God's breath/speech, then isn't it a form of God's Word? If so, then doesn't that make science a form of it? It can't operate outside of the boundaries God set for this existence... so why not?
I agree, loving someone else does mean putting their worth over yours. "If you love someone enough, then you'll know when to let them go" or something like that. But that's the whole point of this debate, is it not? We want to know what's right, not what each side states. The Bible isn't even clear on it - two different and fairly equal arguments can be made on the topic.
I'm currently wondering, though, why the Huge fuss on something ambiguously referenced to at best only a handful of times in the Bible?... Actually, I'm sure the answer is to save all people from their sin, but still, "Methinks thou dost protest too much."
Love (in all it's many forms) is an active willingness to seek understanding and respect for one's fellow human beings, and to be there for them in times of need. Love is reaching out and forming enriching relationships based on caring and compassion. Love is not simply saying, "I love you;" it is showing it.
Here, here, Morluna! I can't say it any better. Thank you! ^_^
Alison, it is good that you feel you are seeking...but can I share something with you that really might surprise you? The Bible says that no one seeks God. Not one. (Romans 3:10) Yet, you are undeniably drawn to spiritual things...if you aren't seeking God, it must mean He is seeking YOU out. Does that chill your spine? Knowing that the Creator of the Universe is seeking out you, Alison? We all have a destiny with death one day. I encourage you to pray for the One and Only God to open your heart and mind ot His truth. You will not regret it. I am glad to hear you are not afraid to be challenged. But I must ask - are you prepared to stand before a Holy and Just God? I will be praying for you that God will reveal Himself in a mighty way and prepare your heart - get ready sister! You're in for life's greatest (and only worthwhile) adventure!
Hmm... makes sense. How can you seek something you can't comprehend? =) Wanderingtrekker shared something with me the other day that brings that to mind - thanks!
Jesus hoped to destroy the system of oppression of his time not by eliminating poverty, but by teaching mankind that one will be rich in spirit not by having more possessions than others, but by giving away his possessions. This does not mean that poverty should be ignored, but programs that attempt to reduce poverty without changing the definition of success will only lead to the formation of another system of oppression in the future. According to Gandhi, “poverty is the worst form of violence.” The act of doing violence is destructive to one’s inner being. Acts of compassion heal the soul and help those who, through the gift of compassion, receive the love of Jesus.
Yes, yes! That's it ^_^ He went for the heart of all things!
I'd say that it is an issue of lust, not love. Homosexuals and lesbians can love people of the same sex, but they can't have sex with them. That would be lust and it is something that is very clearly laid out in Scripture as God being against. I have not read this whole thread, but maybe we should define what love is. One thing it definitely is not is feeling...Anybody want to offer up their definition of Love?
Hmmm... someone with more experience might have to back me up, but there's still a difference between the love you have for, say, a relative, as opposed to your significant other. My heart tells me that.
I love all men, but I won't marry them. We are commanded to love everyone, but we are not to marry everyone.
It's not an issue of love, it's an issue of morality.
Actually, I think that makes it a good time to bring up the issue of marriage. Marriage originally was what we would understand today as a civil union - a partnership. Basically, the church wanted to get in on the action and bless the union, so it came after. In fact, the Episcopal church has been known to even bless friendships and partnerships, such as between a pair of fishing buddies who had been best friends for like 60 years. Interesting, no? I'd say at the least you can bless the friendship and hope that they don't lose that, whether or not you bless the... the sex? Wait, do they do that nowadays? I've never actually heard that happen....
But, none of that means that I know anything about science lol. I am not scientist. So I can't prove scientifically to you that homosexuality is somehting you are born with. I will pose this question to you though: if it is a conscious decision, why would anyone choose it in this society? For attention? That's silly. I do not think it is a choice, and that is the root of our differences
Morluna (if my very short memory serves right) already gave approximate statistics for the genetic susceptability of it. But yeah, no, it's not a choice. Love ya, Alison =)
To the other comments about marriage, read back up.
Secondly, When people walk in darkness they hate the light, so when sodomy is exposed as wrong, they dont like it. I am not afraid of offending anyone, for it is not me which offends but the gospel. You are afraid, the fear of man is deadly, but the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Wise men dont commit sodomy.
You're right, and congratulations, admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery =) Ok, ok, so no one's admitting to a problem, I was just kidding, but I don't like how adamantly some people on this board refuse to admit they may be wrong. Inflexibility is a sign of corruption in just about everything, including religion. Or... or don't be inflexible... and listen to what you're told.... Hitler would be proud o.o;
Micah: Alison you drunken war mongering rock and roll freak
Ok, it's official, I would like to be done debating with this guy. Honestly, name calling? That's how you think, huh? That's why you jumped on the word 'homophobe' rather than any of the actual content I posted from the very beginning? Please, stop the violence
PS: You have Yet to take up my points like you said you would =(
Ok, time for class. I actually feel like I hit everything in this thread that I missed ^_^ I'll come back and check other things later. Have a wonderful day, all! *love*
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 9:53:48 GMT -5
I am not ignorant about homosexuality, I know that it is a sin and that is all I need to know. I am afraid for sodomites, If they dont repent and trust Jesus then they will go to hell. They wont go to hell because they didnt belive in Jesus, but rather because they are criminals who deserve it, but God commended his lord toward them in that while they were yet sinners, Christ died for them. But they have to make their crooked path STRAIGHT through the power of the new birth.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 7, 2006 10:42:53 GMT -5
Hmmm.... interesting debate between Valentine and Rev K. This thought just came to me, what do you think: If life was made by God's breath/speech, then isn't it a form of God's Word? If so, then doesn't that make science a form of it? It can't operate outside of the boundaries God set for this existence... so why not? Again, I'm not debating (yet...). Facts were requested. I provided them. All may disregard them at their discretion, but now if you choose to do so, you will do it out of ignorance, not from lack of information. Actually, that was me, I think. And no, it's not completely genetic, at least that is the generally accepted opinion today: there are many complicated environmental factors as well. Remember that the twin studies indicate a 52% correlation with identical raised apart: if it were completely genetic, there would be a 100% correlation because identical twins have the same DNA, therefore no differences in environment should come into play at all (does that make sense? I want to make sure y'all understand the magnitude of twin studies and what they're used for). This means that if you were an identical twin, your twin would always have the same sexuality as you did. But that's not the case, so this is probably not a purely genetic trait. Regardless, I do not believe that choice factors into the equation at all, and no reputable scientist that I know of will tell you otherwise. One more thing from a purely philosophical viewpoint: why on Earth would someone choose to be a part of a discriminated minority? I've seen the way some members of this board speak about/to homosexuals and it is quite frankly nothing short of despicable. Who wouldn't want to avoid such treatment if they could? evanschaible: But if what I'm saying is fact (and it is...check my sources if you wish), and sexuality is not a choice, who determined a person's sexuality? Does god determine who will be left handed and right handed, what hair color they will have, how tall they are, etc? If we don't choose it, and you accept that god created all humanity and has foreknowledge of all things, isn't the only other option that god himself decided a person's sexuality along with their hair color? How can you punish someone for a trait they have no control over? Just don't ignore or distort known facts to fit within your personal beliefs: use them to validate your beliefs, as I have seen so many intelligent Christians do. And as to becoming straight (if you intended that pun--if not, disregard this), as I said in my first post, it's been proven that those methods are quite ineffective. More evidence for sexuality not being chosen. And a question for the heterosexuals: can you tell me the point at which you chose to be straight?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 7, 2006 10:45:22 GMT -5
hopefulheart,
I did take up some of them. Go back and read carefully.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 10:59:58 GMT -5
Valentine,
Please, if you can, explain to me all of the guilty sodomites that have been touched by the power of God almighty and changed into law abiding citizens of God's kingdom.
Explain to me why they feel guilty when people like us care enough to warn them that it is wrong, you see, you are the one that preaches the hate message, you dont even care that one day God will judge them for their perversion. You dont care that one day, if they havent turned from it a trusted in Jesus they will go to hell. Does that not stir you up, that no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God. We preach a message of love, we love to see homosexuals turn from their sin and trust in the savior. It makes us happy when sodomites are converted and set free from their perversion. Are murderers born with the inclination to murder? Are rapists born with the desire to rape innocent women? No, and just the same sodomites are not born with the natural inclination to have sex with the same sex. They choose, just like the murderer and the rapist, to commit those filthy acts of abomination.
It is sin, and they are sinful by nature, and they choose to obey the lusts of their flesh. Just because it feels good doesnt mean it is right, sodomy is wrong, and your conscience will tell you that, but you have to listen to it.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 11:11:23 GMT -5
Please, if you can, explain to me all of the guilty sodomites that have been touched by the power of God almighty and changed into law abiding citizens of God's kingdom. Here is the website of one such ministry: www.exodus-international.org/As a wise man once said, "A person with an experience is not at the mercy of one with an argument." These EX-Homosexuals were touched by the Power and Love of God and set free from their sins...particularly Homosexuality. God Bless and may He open your eyes to the Truth.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 7, 2006 11:14:48 GMT -5
Valentine, Please, if you can, explain to me all of the guilty sodomites that have been touched by the power of God almighty and changed into law abiding citizens of God's kingdom. Actually, if I recall correctly, the two men who started one of the well-known programs to "cure" homosexuality ended up together. How's that for irony? I don't have the specific resource on that one because it's not something I research that often, so if you'd like sources, I'd have to go looking. I'm going to...attempt to navigate my way through that run-on sentence you've got there and answer your questions. First of all: please calm down. I did not accuse you of preaching hate messages nor did I make any statements about your character, as I do not know you and am not in the business of jumping to conclusions. Secondly: I'd hazard a guess that not many people will like it when you refer to something they cannot control as a propensity to "commit those filthly acts of abomination." Children who grow up in an environment where they're indoctrinated with the belief that how they feel is wrong are going to end up with guilt when these feelings persist. An intro psychology course will tell you that. You've got cognitive dissonance going on there and nothing more, not an inherent knowledge that their behavior is "sinful." Doesn't make it right. Please have a look at my original post when I explained why the generally accepted, scientific view is that homosexuality is not a choice. If you have any questions about it, I'll be more than happy to clarify. Twin studies can be difficult to grasp as well as LeVay's research. My conscience is telling me that no matter what I personally believed, telling people horror stories about how they are awful human beings who are doomed to hell is neither good behavior nor a good way to get them to see my point of view. EDIT: Rev K: I did some googling and you might be interested in this information-- There is no reliable scientific research to indicate that any change in sexual orientation has occurred as a result of these programs. There has never been a study published in a peer-reviewed journal supporting these efforts. Professional peer review is standard for all scientific research and proposed care. Reports of change come only from the "ex-gay" leadership and the practitioners of reparative therapy."Ex-gay" programs have been denounced by every respected medical and mental health care organization and child welfare agency in America, including:
American Psychiatric Association American Psychological Association American Medical Association American Academy of Pediatrics American Association of School Administrators American Federation of Teachers The Interfaith Alliance Foundation National Academy of Social Workers National Education Association American Counseling Association World Health Organization Council on Child and Adolescent Health. Source: www.outfront.org/library/fact.html
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 11:27:04 GMT -5
Again valentine, you are blinded, we cant convince you, only God can. You are much to adament to prove us wrong, I gave you the chance to push your so called science onto me and it failed to convince me of anything. Read the bible, read what God's word says about homosexuality. Pray about it, I read your material, so now it is your turn to read the material we respect, God's word.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 11:28:43 GMT -5
"Ex-gay" programs have been denounced by every respected medical and mental health care organization and child welfare agency in America, including:
American Psychiatric Association American Psychological Association American Medical Association American Academy of Pediatrics American Association of School Administrators American Federation of Teachers The Interfaith Alliance Foundation National Academy of Social Workers National Education Association American Counseling Association World Health Organization Council on Child and Adolescent Health. Source: www.outfront.org/library/fact.html That really means nothing to me. I wonder why they denounce it? I wonder if they are biased. Of course they denounce it because their presupposition is that Homosexuality is ok morally and that people are made that way. My presupposition is that people choose homosexuality because they are sinners and that God's Word is true in calling it a sin. The proof stands though, so take a look for yourself: exodus.to/testimonials_start.shtml
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 7, 2006 11:35:02 GMT -5
Again valentine, you are blinded, we cant convince you, only God can. You are much to adament to prove us wrong, I gave you the chance to push your so called science onto me and it failed to convince me of anything. Read the bible, read what God's word says about homosexuality. Pray about it, I read your material, so now it is your turn to read the material we respect, God's word. That sounds suspiciously like you admitting that you have nothing to say to hard facts. I've read your Bible. Many times. I've researched other religions as well. I'd really appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about my faith and what I've been exposed to. I did not resort to such argumentum ad hominem in my posts and would like the same consideration, if possible. Simply asserting that I am "blinded" every time I present to you a valid study with statistical evidence to support it--that's not very convincing. In fact, it reads remarkably like the "straw man" arguments that another poster was recently accused of in a different thread. EDIT: Rev K: So you're telling me that every reputable, peer-edited, scientific journal is "biased" in their findings while the very organization that propagated these "results" is not biased? That's like saying that a cigarette company that published a study finding that smoking is beneficial to your health is not biased. And furthermore, that their findings should be taken over myriad research to the contrary by neurtral parties. As to the supposed bias of the APA and other organizations, I believe the issue will become more clear to you if you did a bit of research into how these studies are conducted. As a psychology student myself, I know what goes into correcting for bias, chance error, and experimentor expectations--and quite frankly, you're simply incorrect. Please don't make me get into a lecture about counterbalancing, alpha level, ANOVA and double-blind procedure. Because I will. In the face of these well-known methods for correcting bias, a list of testimonies on a website with an agenda fails to convince me. And your insinuation that the APA would denounce ex-gay programs simply because of a previously held belief offends me.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 11:50:19 GMT -5
Settle down Valentine...no need to get Harsh or upset...What it really comes down to is this: I take God's Word over man's Word. It wouldn't matter to me what so-called "facts" you show me from any organization. Whether these organizations are "biased" or not is not the point. They still start with the presupposition that homosexuality is not immoral, hurts no one involved (whether directly or indirectly) and that people are "born that way" instead of it being a choice. If ANYONE or ORGANIZATION starts with those presuppositions, then I reject their findings...simple as that. Let's keep this discussion civil, ok?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 7, 2006 12:06:56 GMT -5
Settle down Valentine...no need to get Harsh or upset...What it really comes down to is this: I take God's Word over man's Word. It wouldn't matter to me what so-called "facts" you show me from any organization. Whether these organizations are "biased" or not is not the point. They still start with the presupposition that homosexuality is not immoral, hurts no one involved (whether directly or indirectly) and that people are "born that way" instead of it being a choice. If ANYONE or ORGANIZATION starts with those presuppositions, then I reject their findings...simple as that. Let's keep this discussion civil, ok? You insinuated that what I've been learning to do all year is lie to people. I apologize if I came across as curt but that offended me. And actually, no, they did not. As I said in my previous post, it seems that you do not understand how research is conducted. The generally accepted, conservative way of doing research is to make no predictions about which way the research will go. This is called a two-tailed alternative hypothesis (example: "Sleeping pills will have an effect on test taking ability." They didn't say whether it would make you perform better or worse.). There is zero place for morality and personal opinion in scientific research. It does not enter into the equation; no researcher that I know of would ever use a personal belief that homosexuality is okay to justify denouncing ex-gay programs. And as for the idea that personal opinion would bias the research unknowingly--ever heard of double-blind procedure? We are held to such high standards with conducting studies and reporting findings; it's the only way we can hope to have any credibility. Let's not attack the APA, alright? The fact remains that they have infinitely more credibility as a neutral party than any single organization that is very much tied to the source and wants a specific outcome. And I'm going to go with their research and the research of other organizations like it. If you want to say that they, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association and all the others on that list are incorrect...well, that's your right. But at least now you and everyone else who reads this board will know exactly what you are claiming to be false.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 7, 2006 12:06:59 GMT -5
Valentine: Thanks for the clarification, and yes, there are numerous factors. S'why I stated it's the susceptability, heh. I like you, you're smart, you keep me from having to say nearly as much ^ ^
Micah: I did take up some of them. Go back and read carefully.
So go on and take all of them up, please. And remember, nothing you've already said a dozen times ^_-
It is sin, and they are sinful by nature, and they choose to obey the lusts of their flesh. Just because it feels good doesnt mean it is right, sodomy is wrong, and your conscience will tell you that, but you have to listen to it.
Yes, sodomy is wrong! I SO agree! Rape = bad.
Silly people who think the sin in Sodom was homosexuality, teehee
Actually, if I recall correctly, the two men who started one of the well-known programs to "cure" homosexuality ended up together. How's that for irony? I don't have the specific resource on that one because it's not something I research that often, so if you'd like sources, I'd have to go looking.
I really gave a good look with an open heart to this site, exodus.com, which preached that they convert homosexuals. I read some of their prized cases... *shakes his head* And the evidence they cite is pretty damn weak. I tend to just sigh when someone tries to use the "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" argument. I find that to be a very ignorant claim at evidence.
Again valentine, you are blinded, we cant convince you, only God can. You are much to adament to prove us wrong, I gave you the chance to push your so called science onto me and it failed to convince me of anything. Read the bible, read what God's word says about homosexuality. Pray about it, I read your material, so now it is your turn to read the material we respect, God's word.
See, it's this stubborn refusal to admit that you even MAY be wrong. I'll tell you right now, I might be wrong, but I'm going to go with what I believe.
evanschaible, what if You are the one who is blinded? If you can, look with an open mind.
Bless your heart.
That really means nothing to me. I wonder why they denounce it? I wonder if they are biased. Of course they denounce it because their presupposition is that Homosexuality is ok morally and that people are made that way. My presupposition is that people choose homosexuality because they are sinners and that God's Word is true in calling it a sin.
Yay for self-justification! Again, I want to know what you think about my 'debate' posted above. Valentine, I'd really like your input as well, and anyone else. I love feedback <3
As a psychology student myself, I know what goes into correcting for bias, chance error, and experimentor expectations--and quite frankly, you're simply incorrect. Please don't make me get into a lecture about counterbalancing, alpha level, ANOVA and double-blind procedure. Because I will. In the face of these well-known methods for correcting bias, a list of testimonies on a website with an agenda fails to convince me.
Please do... it's basic Psychology and basic Statistics...
But the blind... *deep sigh* Only God can help them. But perhaps we're supposed to be the vessels for God's work.... hmmm....
~Hopeful<3
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 7, 2006 12:35:31 GMT -5
Valentine: Thanks for the clarification, and yes, there are numerous factors. S'why I stated it's the susceptability, heh. I like you, you're smart, you keep me from having to say nearly as much ^ ^ Thanks. I'm perpetually a student, a seeker of knowledge and my personal truth. But I do think I've learned some interesting things along the way that have been helpful to me--and I'm happy to share them with others. It is incredibly weak. Biased testimonials do not a statistically significant finding make. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of scientifically sound research would know this. It's like believing an infomercial. Yep. I tend not to enter an argument unless I'm pretty sure that I know what I'm talking about and can back up my claims with facts--but if I'm proven incorrect, you'd better believe that I will acknowledge it and change my tune. I've done it in the past. Which debate? The one concerning the definition of love? Point me to it and I will offer my thoughts. The reason I didn't respond before was that I was taking a purely scientific perspective and keeping personal feelings where they belong. Since members here have made it clear that science means nothing to them, I consider that license to bring my personal feelings and positions into the mix and remove my objective researcher's lense. Couldn't tell if that was sarcasm or not (since I wholeheartedly agree that grown adults should already know their way around basic psychology, especially ones who claim to have knowledge about the way morality works). But if you or anyone else is honestly curious, just let me know either here or through PM/AIM and I'll share what I have learned so far. Again, I'm just a student, but what I do know is that the methods for a sound research study are more stringent than a layperson would ever believe. You wouldn't believe some of the things I've had to learn in my attempts to become an ethical researcher. The level of scrutiny there is approaching the redundant and the ridiculous--which is why I immediately jumped on any belief that the APA was less than objective in their findings. I like you, too, hopefulheart. I'm looking forward to getting to know you better.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 7, 2006 13:42:09 GMT -5
I would like to add somthing else to add on the debate about how homosexuality is caused. And I must start off by saying that no one is completely sure as to how it is caused. The theory that I think is most probable claims that the main factors in generating homosexuality are biological. Basically, the brain is "sexed" or perhaps I should say "oriented" at some point in the womb. Most of the time, this "sexing" is consistent with the genetically determined gender of the embryo. However, 5-10% of the time, it is believed that this "sexing" is inconsistent. Thus, a child born with an inconsistent orientation is homosexual. You must remember that the most important sex organ in the body is the brain. This hypothesis also explains the differences in sexuality for identical twins, who, of course, share the same DNA. If a certian enzyme or hormone is introduced in the womb to one embryo, but not the other, it could explain their differing sexualities. You might ask, of course, don't twins share the same womb? Yes they do, but I believe that they have seperate placentas. If you'd like more info, 60 Minutes recently did a story on it. It can be found at: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 7, 2006 13:57:43 GMT -5
Valentine: This 'debate':
Hmmm.... interesting debate between Valentine and Rev K. This thought just came to me, what do you think: If life was made by God's breath/speech, then isn't it a form of God's Word? If so, then doesn't that make science a form of it? It can't operate outside of the boundaries God set for this existence... so why not?
You weren't technically debating and I guess I might have drawn that idea a little from the blue, but I like the issue and I wanna hear different sides of it ^_^
And no, nononono, I was not being sarcastic. I'm taking intro to Psych right now and had a statistics course last semester, so I understand exactly what you mean!
And to wanderingtrekker: Great info, oh wow
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 14:00:25 GMT -5
Does God condemn homosexuality? Please, all who condone it, answer.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 7, 2006 14:04:08 GMT -5
What it really comes down to is this: I take God's Word over man's Word. It wouldn't matter to me what so-called "facts" you show me from any organization. Whether these organizations are "biased" or not is not the point. What concerns me about this rationale is the inherent flaw in the logic. You believe that the Word of God superceedes logic. Now the problem is that you believe this only because in the Bible God's word claims to be infallible. Let's clarify this: Holy Bible: "I'm infallible" Congregants: "The Bible is infallible because it says it is." If that's the logic that you'd like to use, I will put a corallary into my post which is this: I am infallible. There, you can't dispute my postings because I am infallible. How do you know that I'm infallible? Because it says I am in my post. Of course, I'm being facetious, but it's to get at the heart of a bigger matter. If you had been born in, say Lebanon, you'd believe that the Q'uran is the infallible Word of God because it says it is and you were always taught that it was. Not only that, but you would be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the Christian Bible was wrong, just as you are certain that all other religions are wrong. The only way to solve this delimma is to use reason. This is how I think of it: If the Bible is really true, then science and logic will confirm it. I think the Buddha says it best: "Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha also says: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless if agrees with your own reasons and your own common sense." Not to resurrect an old argument from this board, but many (but not all) used the Bible to uphold the morality of American slavery. Today, we use reason to say that since we know that Africans are merely a different skin color, but are otherwise human (by science) and because our conciences tell us that they should be afforded the same rights as white-skinned Americans, we no longer participate in slavery. If slaveholders had used reason, they might have been less inclined to uphold such a dispicable practice as slavery. They might have also been less inclined to say that slavery is ok, because it always has been. A similar arguement is currently being made by the religious right. Gays shouldn't be able to marry because marraige has always been between a man and a woman. Also, even though there is a credible perponderence of scientific evidence proving that sexual orientation is not chosen, we will not use logic because the opposite is written in our religious books. Remember that the New Testament was written in Greek. In the beginning was the logos. Logos is the root from which we derive the English word logic. There are many ways to discover God in the world. Some of that discovery can be found in scripture, but much of it can be found in the world--in nature, in (wo)man, in science.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 7, 2006 14:20:46 GMT -5
hopefulheart said Jesus never condemned homosex.
Jesus is God. The bible is the Word of God. It is the words of Jesus. Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1, Revelation 19:13). Leviticus 18, 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 all condemn homosex as sin. Jesus is God. All scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16).
Jesus condemned homosex in Matthew 19:4-6 by upholding God's only pattern for human sexuality. This shows marriage, monogamy, and MALE AND FEMALE.
There are many things Jesus said that are not recorded (John 21:25).
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 7, 2006 14:28:54 GMT -5
wanderingtrekker, there has also been evidence in support of a correlation between homosexuality and number of older brothers, suggesting that perhaps something happens to the womb with each pregnancy with a male fetus. This correlation, I believe was present whether the brothers were raised together or not, discounting environmental factors. With identical twins, I think your theory is a good one, though I definitely believe the environmental differences play a role (with identical twins raised apart, you can safely say that almost any difference will be environmental).
hopefulheart, your position is similar to those I have heard from many other intelligent, religious individuals: the laws of science are absolute...but god creates those laws. Generally, this is how the idea of creating the world in seven days is assimilated with the very real and very not-going-away theory of evolution. Perhaps this is not done very often because, unlike blindly accepting an archaic teaching, thinking about the things you believe takes effort--and a willingness to be tolerant of new information. Nevertheless, I do see this attitude occasionally and have nothing but respect for those who think in this way. PS: Psychology is amazing! I am a psych/English double major and a member of Psy Chi; I love discussing these things. If you ever have any questions about psych, I'm a good one to ask. I'm currently trying to get through my Psych Stat and Research Methods course, which explains my reaction to the efficacy of APA's research.
evanschaible, I'm (quite happily, for the record) agnostic, do not believe that the Judeo-Christian god exists, and therefore do not really care if he condemns homosexuality or not. Now that is as much of a non-answer as you have given me in the past, but I will answer you just as soon as you answer me--without propagating a glittering generality or demanding that I pray.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 15:44:28 GMT -5
What it really comes down to is this: I take God's Word over man's Word. It wouldn't matter to me what so-called "facts" you show me from any organization. Whether these organizations are "biased" or not is not the point. What concerns me about this rationale is the inherent flaw in the logic. You believe that the Word of God superceedes logic. Now the problem is that you believe this only because in the Bible God's word claims to be infallible. When did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth...
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 7, 2006 16:30:08 GMT -5
When did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth... You are right. You never said that God's word superceded logic. Could you clarify that please. I'm confused, because I thought that if logic and science tell us that evoltion occurs, but God's word says it doesn't then you would choose God's word, but now it appears that you would actually choose logic. Or did I misunderstand you again? So just to clarify: Does logic superceede God's word or does God's word superceede logic? Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 7, 2006 16:35:47 GMT -5
wanderingtrekker, there has also been evidence in support of a correlation between homosexuality and number of older brothers, suggesting that perhaps something happens to the womb with each pregnancy with a male fetus. This correlation, I believe was present whether the brothers were raised together or not, discounting environmental factors. With identical twins, I think your theory is a good one, though I definitely believe the environmental differences play a role (with identical twins raised apart, you can safely say that almost any difference will be environmental). Yes, that is correct. It was mentioned in the 60 minutes article as well, but I should have pointed it out just in case others on the board didn't visit the site. Incidentally, the show chronicles a pair of pre-adolescent identical twins who were raised together from birth. One acts normally (likes cars, GI Joes), the other plays with dolls and paints his nails. Remember that these children are both younger than puberty, so any sexual awakening has yet to occur. Therefore one twin exhibits "extreme gender non-conformity" but not homosexuality. It is very likely that he will be gay, however, when he grows up. This, I think, lessens the impact of environment, although I think it still plays a role. Valentine, I would also be interested in being in on these discussions with hopefulheart. I think I could learn from you, and I imagine you from me (and I don't mean that in bragging sort of manner, I'm serious). Thanks for your posts!
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 16:55:47 GMT -5
When did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth... You are right. You never said that God's word superceded logic. Could you clarify that please. I'm confused, because I thought that if logic and science tell us that evoltion occurs, but God's word says it doesn't then you would choose God's word, but now it appears that you would actually choose logic. Or did I misunderstand you again? So just to clarify: Does logic superceede God's word or does God's word superceede logic? Sorry for the confusion. What I am saying I didn't say is that I believe God's Word is God's Word just because it says it is. That may be one of the reasons, but not the only one. I believe it is God's Word because it proves to be God's Word through Prophecy, Archaeology, Science and History. I don't think true "logic" can go against God's Word. And I don't think that anyone on here has given me any "logic" that supersedes anything that God's Word says. I haven't read any post and don't intend to. Most of what is said on this post has been Illogical. Let me put it this way so that I am VERY CLEAR: there is NOTHING that you can say that will make me believe that God's Word isn't totally true, that God is ok with homosexuality, or that homosexuals (along with all others who practice and live in sin- liars, thieves, blasphemers, murderers, fornicators, drunkards, etc.) will go to Heaven. So, there is NO SENSE in trying to convince me otherwise. If you have the same attitude towards homosexuality being ok, the Bible not being God's Word and homosexuals going to Heaven, then you might as well stop posting on this message board. I can tell you this (since I know the men on the message board): They all feel the same way as me. So, if you are here to change the minds of someone you will be VERY unsuccessful. So, with that in mind, go pray for us and we will pray for you and in the end we will find out who is wrong...
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 7, 2006 17:21:51 GMT -5
What do you guys think about using the word "gay"? I am against it. I don't think we should use the word gay because it's a positive word describing a negative thing. The bible doesn't use the word. I typically only use the word homosexual or sodomite or pervert because the bible uses those words. Well, guys, I've been meaning to address this point, but I keep forgetting. If you use the word homosexual, it seems to me that you are referring to an orientation. You guys don't seem to believe in an orientation, so I think you should avoid using that word, lest you be misinterpreted. I'm not sure that sodomite is appropriate either. First off, before the KJV, the biblical references to Sodomites only meant citizens of Sodom. The original Hebrew and Greek translations would never have been used in the context of calling male-male intercourse sodomy. And I think that the Bible is pretty clear on this. If you will please turn to Ezekiel, chapter 16. *Waits while readers TURN TO EZEKIEL CHAPTER 16* For context, we begin with 16:1 "The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her detestable practices 3 and say, 'this is what the Sovereign LORD says to Jerusalem:..." Now, let's skip ahead a couple of verses (I can wait if you'd like to read all the way however) 16:46: "Your older sister was Samaira, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was called Sodom. 47You not only walked in their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they. 48As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 49Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." This appraisal by one of Israel's prophets seems to re-enforce the true calling of God: to love (see my earlier post on love). Sodom did not have compassion. She did not give hospitality to the guests of Lot. Indeed, even if you still think that Sodom was destroyed by God because of homosexuality, the Bible does not uphold it as worse than other sins. You see, later on in chapter 16 (see verse 52):..."Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous." So calling gays sodomites is only appropiate if they are indeed inhospitiable. pervert: n. a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior. In that case, it would depend on who is defining what is acceptable. If it's God, it is at least questionable as to whether it is forbidden. Since some people might not think of it as a perversion, it might not be best to refer to it as such. That leaves gay, but whoever said the word gay was positive? If you've ever been to any kind of a school recently you'll note that it's used as a derogatory term, as in "That book is so gay!" or "Riding a bike to school is so gay!" In that regard it isn't really a positive term. I use gay, however, because gay people tend to prefer that term. It doesn't sound as clinical as homosexual.
|
|