|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 24, 2006 15:48:05 GMT -5
The most common arguement for homosexuality being natural is, "why would someone choice to be a homosexual in a society that frowns upon it? Would someone really choose to suffer so much for it?" Well, actually I'm not sure that that is the most common argument, although I wll concede that it is heard very often. Being gay is not about suffering, although there is plenty of suffering involved. I think that the alcohol reference is a bit off. People aren't alcoholics because they love being alcoholics, they are alcoholics because they are addicted to a drug. They maybe using it to escape from the world, or just to relax, but many wish to stop. They don't love alcoholism, they fear/shy away from other realities by looking into a bottle. Same with the robbery argument, but I'm not going to go into too much detail. I just want to quote a very informative passage from the book Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America. Gays do not choose to suffer, nor do they choose to be gay. An argument that could be made is the following: People choose to be Jewish. There are anti-semites who attempt to make their lives miserable. People suffer just for being Jewish. Therefore Judaism must be wrong. If we got rid of Judaism, people wouldn't suffer for being Jewish anymore. Gay people do not suffer because they are gay. They suffer because society is prejudiced and bigoted. The answer to this injustice is not to remove the object of the bigotry, but rather to remove the bigotry. Just because gay people suffer, however, does not mean that they are not happy. There is a really great quote out there: "It is better to be hated for what you are than loved for what you are not." --Andre Gide Gay people have come to terms with who they are. They will still experience prejudice, but they will not give up their sense of self no matter what, because there is nothing more powerful than that sense. Oh, and just to be clear, I am using the terms gay and homosexual NON-interchangably. A gay person is someone who is out to at least themself, and who is not upset about their homosexuality. A homosexual person can be gay, but is not necessarily accepting of themself.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 24, 2006 15:57:01 GMT -5
Elwing: You make an excellent point, and I think Ian already addressed it very nicely. For some reason, "Anna and Eve" struck a chord with me. I don't know why, but those names seem really nice together. And by that, I mean really, really nice. Maybe it's the writer talking. But if I ever write anything with a lesbian couple whose names are Anna and Eve, it'll be all your fault! Trekker:I was also thinking about addressing the alcoholism point but decided it wasn't worth it, so thanks for doing that. Concerning terminology, I have often wondered which word to use so as not to be offensive. I tend to always go with 'homosexual' unless I'm speaking with someone who I know won't be upset by 'gay.' Is this a personal distinction you've made or more widespread? Would be helpful for me to know in the future. "It is better to be hated for what you are than loved for what you are not." --Andre GideOh, merciful Merlin. Beauty.
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on Apr 24, 2006 17:20:37 GMT -5
valentine, I would be honored if you named future characters after something I said. Just make sure you dedicate the book to me .
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 24, 2006 19:16:41 GMT -5
lol... the gay gene... of course there's not a gay gene. There isn't a single gene for a large majority of traits. Most of these traits are formed by a combination of many, many genes. So of course you won't find one 'gay gene'
As always, twin studies are a wonderful example of how orientation is not a choice. And on an ironic note, a friend was telling me a story related to this. She had friends who were twins - one was gay, one was straight... supposedly. For years this was the way things were. Then finally the other twin came out of the closet.
Now, to slightly play devil's advocate, you could say that you Choose whether or not you act on your orientation. However, I would caution against this. The Bible Clearly argues that men and women who give up their 'natural' relationships for non-natural ones is frowned upon. So if you aren't homosexual... then homosexual acts may not be a good idea. And if you are... heterosexual acts may not be a good idea.
^_- *lets the more Bible-knowledged on the board pull up that quote, though he could if he wanted to spare the time*
|
|
|
Post by irtechie on Apr 24, 2006 19:17:54 GMT -5
2 problems led to this type of debate.
1. My parents generation messed up badly in their choices for the direction for our country. This lead to the harming of the American family and the entire country is suffering for it now and will continue suffering until it gets off its collective behind and decides that "No one owes me anything, I must make my own way".
2. When a society becomes lazy it starts to deteriorate. The last time Homosexuality was this prevalent in any society was during Rome, before they fell. (Unless you count the Samurai in Japan). It is when those societies got comfortable the "extraneous" things kick in.
Homosexuality was very low when there is a low population and people have to work very hard.
Homosexuality is a choice not a "birth defect", As far as God saying that a ll gays will burn, that is wrong, that is in Leviticus and says I should own some slaves as well.
Now in this debate you must remember one thing. You shouldn't condemn Homosexuals that is no one but God's job. I believe that of most "consensual" sins are sins of morality rather than offenses to others.
But, if you look at Internet porn like 70% of American Men, or you have sex before marriage you are just as guilty as a homosexual would be.
They are equal sins of lust. If you haven't done any of these things I applaud your parents for being better than most, however if you have then don't condemn Gay's unless you plan on explaining to God why you felt OK to act greater than thou at them while you were doing the same sin yourself, just trying to act pompous and proud (Neither thing Jesus emulated BTW)
Personally I believe that it isn't my business or anyone else's here what someone does in the bedroom, that is between them and their Higher Power. Which is why I don't like it being pushed on me as a norm. It isn't.
BTW I'm catholic and I pity people with homosexual urges.
|
|
|
Post by ian2400 on Apr 24, 2006 20:16:28 GMT -5
The christian obsession with suppressing sensory urges has always bugged me. In today's world, almost anything is safe in moderation. So, why all the fuss?
Oh yeah, their sky daddy told them to....
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 24, 2006 21:25:59 GMT -5
2 problems led to this type of debate. 1. My parents generation messed up badly in their choices for the direction for our country. This lead to the harming of the American family and the entire country is suffering for it now and will continue suffering until it gets off its collective behind and decides that "No one owes me anything, I must make my own way". Sorry, Techie, but I must inquire. What is your parent's generation? Would that be the generation that elected Franklin Roosevelt, the generation which elected Kennedy, the generation of Nixon, or of Reagan? Which choices were bad? How has this led to the harming of the family? And I should inquire as to whether the family is actually floundering? Are we sitting on a collective behind? I sure as Tuesday am not. Is there a correlation between homosexuality and laziness? Is there really a correlation between the fall of societies and homosexuality? Did the British Empire fall because of homosexuality? How about the Holy Roman Empire? Napoleonic France? Third Reich? Soviet Union? Please be careful not to make the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because something existed within a system which collapsed doesn't mean that it caused the fall. I could argue that Rome was the first empire to build really great roads, therefore the Interstate System marked the beginning of the end of our society. In reality, no one knows why Rome "fell." Most empires fall because of military defeat/weaknesses or economic difficulties, including natural disasters and resource depletion. Besides which, studies have shown that the number of homosexual persons in the world population is relatively stable. The percentage of homosexual persons in Rome is probably a similar percentage to those living in the United States in 1776 or 2006. The trend to which you are reacting is not the fact that there are more gay persons in the world, just that more of them refuse to live in the closet. If you have some compelling evidence to show that decadence causes decline, please do tell. Once again, the rate of homosexuality is stable. Hard work is not a deterrent for homosexuality. Once again, it is an inborn trait. Furthermore, you seem to hint at the fact that homosexuals cannot work hard. They can, and they do. They work in every industry from fireman to soldier. They are teachers, mail carriers, waiters/waitresses, and auto workers. They are sons, they are mothers, they are brothers, they are aunts. While I applaud your comments against lifting homosexuality above other sins, and letting God do the judgement, I must inquire whether you looked at the data provided by myself and others. Do you find its premise faulty? Is there some reason that you ignore scientific evidence supporting homosexuality as a natural outcome? Do you have proof that it's a choice? And these questions are not directed merely at you, Techie, but at anyone who will answer them.
|
|
|
Post by salvationisnow on Apr 25, 2006 9:35:30 GMT -5
Whatever the reason for homosexuality, it is imperative that we do not judge them, but embrace them as Gods creature...remember let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 25, 2006 13:30:35 GMT -5
We are not to make hypocritical judgment - Matt 7:5-1. That is, a man living in homosexuality cannot tell another man not to do what he himself is doing.
We are not to make unrighteous judgment - John 7:24. That is, we are not to judge based on our own personal thoughts, preferences, or opinions.
But we are to make righteous judgment - John 7:24. That is, we are to declare the righteous judgment of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
Both hypocritical and unrighteous judgments are condemned, but righteous judgment is commanded. Jesus commands that we judge and so I do. I don't want to sin and so I make righteous judgment.
While homosexuals are part of God's creation, they are not God's children unless they turn and trust in Jesus. I am not sure what you mean by "embrace" them. I do not accept them as they are because God does not accept them as they are. God commands that they repent and turn to Him.
I do not wish to throw any stones at homosexuals. Rather I simply seek to warn them in love to flee from the wrath that is to come. I want to throw them a rope because they are drowing in their sin but Jesus Christ can set them free.
However He who IS without sin will cast the first stone. He has ten great stones ready to throw on the day of Judgment. And those found without the covering of the cross will be ground to powder.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 25, 2006 14:39:57 GMT -5
*has yet to see that homosexuals in the Bible are bad*
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 25, 2006 14:51:25 GMT -5
If 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans chapter 1 does not convince you then nothing will. There is also Leviticus, Jude, and Genesis with the story of Sodom and Gommorrah.
There is an abundant references to homosexuality being a condemnable sin in the bible. Those who reject these scriptures or say they don't really mean what they say must have some sort of biased reason for rejecting them, some already established precommitment.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 25, 2006 16:32:38 GMT -5
Those who reject these scriptures or say they don't really mean what they say must have some sort of biased reason for rejecting them, some already established precommitment.
I'm not promoting rejecting those scriptures - 7 in particular that are repeatedly used - or saying they don't really mean what they say. What I am saying, however, is that a biased interpretation of these scriptures has already been made prominent. I'm sure that you understand wanting to remove these biases so that the Truth can come forth?
As I've stated before, the sin of Sodom and Gommorah was rape, not homosexuality. But my repeated arguements against these biased interpretations has gone ignored more than anything =(
Perhaps we can make a thread for each of these sections (maybe grouping the ones that all refer to Sodom and Gommorah) and let the biases be ripped apart! ^_^
|
|
|
Post by salvationisnow on Apr 25, 2006 16:47:28 GMT -5
While homosexuals are part of God's creation, they are not God's children unless they turn and trust in Jesus. I am not sure what you mean by "embrace" them. I do not accept them as they are because God does not accept them as they are. God commands that they repent and turn to Him. God also gave them freewill. That is something you cannot take away from them. You take that as literal dont you..not throwing stones...pulease! That verse refers to not judging people...you go and quote scripture that is fine...but ifthey dont turn you do not ram the scripture down there throat. What did Jesus do when he went to heal people in his home town of nazareth?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 25, 2006 16:59:57 GMT -5
jude 1:7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
How could God say any clearer "homosexuals, sodomites...will not inherit the Kingdom of God" 1 Corinthians 6:9. How could God say it any clearer then this?
God gave them free will to do what is right, not to do what is wrong. I am not at all trying to take their free will away. Rather, I am telling them that God commands that they use their free will to repent and live for Him - Acts 17:30-31
Casting the first stone was literal, as the women had men in front of her about to cast stones. When Jesus said, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" he was literally talking about real stones. That was the situation.
However many have manipulated that verse to mean something it never meant. As you have, you have tried to say it was not literally but figuratively speaking of judging. That is not true. Righteous judgment is commanded in the bible - John 7:24.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 25, 2006 17:19:55 GMT -5
As I've stated before, the sin of Sodom and Gommorah was rape, not homosexuality. Actually, Hopeful, I don't think that's quite right, although I think your assumptions are not excluded Biblically. 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."
|
|
|
Post by salvationisnow on Apr 25, 2006 17:48:35 GMT -5
So let me get this right, they only have freewill if they do what is right. So if they dont have freewill when it is wrong doesnt that mean that they are being controlled by God/Devil. Sorry freewill is a choice to either follow or not follow God. LOL...you think you know better then the pope...yet you spout of verses from a bible that wouldnt be here if not for the catholics.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 25, 2006 23:37:22 GMT -5
Ah, yes, good point, Trekker. Two sides of a similar coin, I think. Rape would be the final volition of their failure to be good hosts. It was an act reserved to ridicule the enemy. After all, in those days the penetratee was considered 'weaker' and thus inferior. That also has to do with where you get the "man should not lay with a man as he would with a woman" verse.
Lot was a guest in the town himself. The people of the town got mad because he stole their honor of housing guests - he wasn't supposed to do that. Nevermind that they failed to house the guests to begin with, apparantly. Rather than insist on simply being given their honor, however, they did the opposite of being good hosts...
Thank you for this important clarification ^_^
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 27, 2006 7:54:19 GMT -5
Ugh. This is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. I have been staring at this for hours and I am just disgusted. I don't understand how anyone can think this is natural. These sinners of homo sex are going to hell unless they repent now. 65.254.88.134/Nov%2012th%20Kissing%20Boys.jpgLol. Sorry, I had to.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 27, 2006 11:01:38 GMT -5
Ugh. This is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. I have been staring at this for hours and I am just disgusted. I don't understand how anyone can think this is natural. These sinners of homo sex are going to hell unless they repent now. 65.254.88.134/Nov%2012th%20Kissing%20Boys.jpgLol. Sorry, I had to. Because I know that Jesse will delete that without looking at ot, I will clarify. It is a pic of two children, probably brothers, kissing. It's kind of cute.
|
|
|
Post by salvationisnow on Apr 27, 2006 17:39:25 GMT -5
No response to my post...hmmmm!
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 28, 2006 15:13:53 GMT -5
To be honest I think the reason no one answered it because you didn't make much sense. God has given man free will to chose is what the essence of what you quoted from Jesse means.
The pope has no more authority than a man walking down the street if he is not born again (turned from sin and has been changed by God). The catholics didn't write the Bible, nor do they deserve credit for any part of it. God Himself preserved His Word.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 28, 2006 15:24:36 GMT -5
The pope has no more authority than a man walking down the street if he is not born again (turned from sin and has been changed by God). The catholics didn't write the Bible, nor do they deserve credit for any part of it. God Himself preserved His Word. I wonder if you can claim that any man has more authority than another. I suppose the Jews also do not deserve any credit for preserving scriptural texts either, do they? Honestly, I understand why you disagree with Catholocism, but why do you find it neccesary to divorce yourself completely from it. The history of protestantism if inherently grounded in Catholocism. If you say that the Catholic church has had NO impact on the way in which you understand Christianity, then you are in denial.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 28, 2006 17:07:25 GMT -5
Fordham University Dissertation Furthers Spitzer's Landmark Study on Sexual Re-orientation Success Dr. A. Dean Byrd Reviews Dissertation on Factors In Re-orientation Success
March 13, 2006 - In a doctoral dissertation directed by Dr. Jay C. Wade, Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, Elan Y. Karten investigates the psychological and religious characteristics of dissatisfied same-sex attracted men who seek sexual re-orientation interventions.
As a logical follow-up to Spitzer's landmark study, the Karten research was specifically designed to investigate the following: the respondent's relationship to his father; type of sexual self-identity; quality of psychological relatedness to other men; and which form of religious values demonstrated the strongest relationship to change. Karten defined "success" in this study as "an increase in heterosexual functioning, a decrease in homosexual functioning, improved psychological well-being, and a greater heterosexual identity."
Among Karten's most robust findings: treatment success is best predicted by a reduction in conflict regarding the expression of non-sexual affection toward other men.
This finding has important theoretical and clinical implications. Perhaps for some boys, early childhood development of strong, non-sexual relationships with other males will prevent the development of homosexuality. Such a theory finds support in the psychodynamic literature, as well as the more recent "Exotic Becomes Erotic" (EBE) theory of Daryl Bem. In addition, Karten's finding strongly suggests that development of healthy, non-sexual relationships with men is an important part of the treatment process. His finding also provides supportive evidence for the effectiveness of men's groups that foster healthy, non-sexual male relationships.
Karten also found significant differences in the perceived effectiveness of traditional psychotherapy, religious interventions, alternative approaches, and self-education. Interestingly, traditional psychotherapy was rated as the least helpful intervention in this category. Religious interventions, alternative approaches and self-education were deemed important. The psychological variables examined in the study such as high lack of psychological relatedness to other men, reduction of conflict associated with restrictive affectionate behavior between men, heterosexual identity, high intrinsic religiosity, and absent/weak bonding with father as a group predicted treatment success. Men who became more comfortable in expressing their thoughts and feelings to other men and those who became comfortable with non-sexualized touch demonstrated a significant advantage in treatment.
Contrary to expectations, Karten's findings indicate that the more one identified as heterosexual, the less change there was in the individual's sexual feelings and behavior toward both women and men. Logically, Karten concluded that the more an individual self-identifies as heterosexual, "the less likely the individual would even seek change in his orientation to be more heterosexual."
Of particular interest was the finding that problematic masculinity may be more amenable to sexual reorientation interventions than an absent/weak paternal bond. This finding suggests that homosexual attractions may be more related to gender (a sense of maleness or masculinity) than to sexuality itself. Also, it may suggest that treatment aimed at strengthening gender identity may be more efficacious than focusing on strengthening parental bonds.
Thus Karten's study, along with others, adds to the body of clinical and research data that conclude that homosexuality is more fluid than fixed. Indeed, the quality of such research, mentored by seasoned professionals, provides scientific evidence to refute the repeated claims of The American Psychological Association (APA) that there is "no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation." The Spitzer study provided clear evidence to the contrary. And now, the Karten study expands on the Spitzer study by identifying factors that are associated with treatment success.
With such data providing support for the efficacy of reparative therapy with some individuals, the question of the ethics of APA discouraging such therapy now becomes center stage. No longer can the opponents of reparative therapy state there is no scientific evidence of its effectiveness. More importantly, as reparative therapy is studied, perhaps it is time for APA to insist on data to support the efficacy of other therapies, including gay affirmative therapy.
The ethical route demands the following: clients should be informed of the possibility that they may be disappointed if therapy (for any reason) does not succeed, so they can make a rational decision whether or not enter therapy. Offering such a choice should be fundamental to any therapeutic endeavor, and is central to client autonomy and client self-determination. In fact, it is clearly unethical for any professional, informed by the literature and guided by evidence-based interventions, to deny the choice of therapy to those who are unhappy with their same-sex attractions and seek therapy to diminish those attractions.
Though such research into sexual reorientation may be viewed as politically incorrect, no longer can it be ignored. Sociopolitical concerns must not interfere with the scientist's freedom to research any reasonable hypothesis, or to explore the efficacy of any reasonable treatment.
Elan Karten, supported by his mentors at Fordham University, has made a major contribution to the scientific literature. He has departed from the academy which has so often capitulated to political correctness, and has agreed with Dr. Robert Spitzer who noted that "science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda." Perhaps other universities will follow Fordham's lead.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 28, 2006 17:29:30 GMT -5
Thank you Thumper. This is the sort of thing I was asking for before. You have used science, an arguement to which I will listen. Of course I could do what you did in the other post and refuse to reply to this arguement because you didn't write it. Apparently you didn't write any of it. At least in my case I made 50 percent of the commentary and used four or five different sources. But I won't. I will respond to this. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by salvationisnow on May 2, 2006 16:48:58 GMT -5
To be honest I think the reason no one answered it because you didn't make much sense. God has given man free will to chose is what the essence of what you quoted from Jesse means. So if God gave us freewill, and some use that freewill to be homosexual, who are we to judge. Doesnt Jeusu teach that he without sin should cast the first stone, and that we should not judge anyone else, ever. You are quite foolish then, the catholics preserved the word of God untill the first printing press, Peter the rock was the very first poe of the Roman Catholics, ordained by christ/God himself.....so yeah he is just another man huh?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 2, 2006 17:10:56 GMT -5
The RCC is satanic.
The Pope?
The popes..... humm..... all from hell, really. (hopefully with a rare exception!)
They killed Christians.
I'm bold enough to say that the Bible condemns the RCC institution, doctrines and especially the popes....
All babylonian god worhsippers who hated Jesus.
Period.
|
|
|
Post by salvationisnow on May 2, 2006 18:51:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on May 2, 2006 21:49:30 GMT -5
The popes..... humm..... all from hell, really. (hopefully with a rare exception!) While I do not agree with a lot of what the Catholic Church has to say, not all Popes are "from hell." In fact I don't believe anyone can be "from hell." Also, Pope John Paul II was an amazing man. He cared about the people and tried to help them. He is one of my personal heroes.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on May 2, 2006 22:28:52 GMT -5
Also, Pope John Paul II was an amazing man. He cared about the people and tried to help them. He is one of my personal heroes. Yeah, dudes, don't bash JPII. At all. Please. Oh, the humanity. Who's next, Gandhi?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 3, 2006 0:33:11 GMT -5
Also, Pope John Paul II was an amazing man. He cared about the people and tried to help them. He is one of my personal heroes. Yeah, dudes, don't bash JPII. At all. Please. Oh, the humanity. Who's next, Gandhi? Anybody touches Gandhi and I'm going to be seriously pissed.
|
|