U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-11-2011, 09:47 PM
 
3,488 posts, read 3,155,602 times
Reputation: 738

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astron1000 View Post
This is the most perverse suggestion I've ever heard.

I KNOW 3 young men who have attempted suicide and 2 who actually succeeded. You are profoundly ignorant and I hope that you soon understand the truth about what it is you are suggesting.

These kids don't commit suicide because they are ashamed. They commit suicide because they cannot live with the incessant HATE hurled their way. If they become ashamed, it's because of the shame relentlessly heaped upon them by bigots. They become confused, yes, but NOT about their sexuality. They become confused because THEY KNOW they are "good people" and yet they are continually told they are instead committing "evil," or are "perverted" or are told "they will go to hell."

How would you react if your parents disowned you, shunned you and prayed that you would just "be normal???" These kids want to be LOVED FOR WHO THEY ARE. Nothing more. And yet, just because the parents have a simplistic belief in an old book that they misinterpret, they reject their own kids - their own flesh and blood - in favor of some wacky rule system that somehow purports to "know" right from wrong. Good from Evil.

I'm very sorry if I come across as screaming. This is personal for me. It's just because I have - with my own eyes - seen tragedy after tragedy. And it's always the same thing. People are who they are. They are black, red, yellow, brown, pink and white. They are male, female, intersexed, transgendered, gay, bisexual, 70% straight, 42% female or 100% American, Armenian or African.

So why do you care? Mind your own business and take the log out of your own eye!
I understand it's touched you personally - but don't just blame christians as the root of all injustice. Look around you - there's quite a few gay pastors out there, openly so, and accepted by their community. Please don't brand all christians as being as close-minded as fundamentalist christians.

Besides that - as far as history shows, homosexuality has always been frowned upon socially, except in some notable instances in which it was tolerated but not legalized, and this was before Christianity was even a drunken gleam in the Holy Spirit's eye.

 
Old 10-12-2011, 06:33 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 11,769,295 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodsPrince View Post
I am the kind of Christian where the act is wrong and the attraction is the sin tempting the human soul. what some of the world needs to understand is that there is no possible way that homosexuality is genetic. if it was genetic there would be no transition from straight to bi curious to bi sexual to gay. second. the bible strictly states in both the old and in the new testiment that homosexuality is sin. in the book of romans, the bible states: be not confused, the drunkard, theif, idolater, nor the homosexual, nor the blasphemers will inherit the kingdom of God (yes that was horribly paraphrased but that is mainly what is in that verse) i refuse to be sucked into the belief that the more people are homosexual the more that God must accept it. Sin is Sin. as defined by the bible. and even in websters dictionary, marriage is defined as the binding between one man and one woman. if you do not believe me. look it up. God loves the homosexual but hates the sin. it is up to the homosexual to repent that sin and come to God as he had created them.
Be not confused, it wasn't Romans 1, it was Corinthians 1:6-9.

And the english word 'homosexuals' was not in the original Koine Greek text written by Paul. You are aware English wasn't even a language then aren't you? And the the word 'homosexuals' wasn't even coined for the first time until 1868?

The Koine Greek words that some English translators started translating (from around the 1950's) as "homosexuals" were malakos and arsenokoites. Neither of these Greek words meant homosexuals in the first century or anytime since.

It's poor and biased scholarship to translate either or both of these words as 'homosexuals'. Some translators were a little lazy and just used the one word 'homosexuals' for both words.

For more information on the translation problems with these 2 Greek words, see
Professor Dale B. Martin's in depth article below (Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University):

Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences | CLGS

As for Websters dictionary.... well as marriage is a legal contract in the US, Black's Law Dictionary would be more appropriate:

Black's Law Dictionary:

marriage, n. (Bc) 1. The legal union of a couple as spouses. - The essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law. Marriage has important consequences in many areas of the law, such as torts, criminal law, evidence, debtor-creditor relations, property, and contracts.

-Black’s Law Dictionary Ninth Edition 2009 Pg 1059

Last edited by Ceist; 10-12-2011 at 07:13 AM..
 
Old 10-12-2011, 07:39 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 11,769,295 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodsPrince View Post
I am the kind of Christian where the act is wrong and the attraction is the sin tempting the human soul. what some of the world needs to understand is that there is no possible way that homosexuality is genetic. if it was genetic there would be no transition from straight to bi curious to bi sexual to gay.
Be not confused:

Yes there is a 'possible way that homosexuality is genetic'. Or at least, there is a genetic component. It's just not "one gay gene". Geneticists have realised for quite a while now that human sexual orientation is far too complex to be determined by just one gene.

There have been many studies (eg twin studies over the past 30 years or so) that show that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation. If one identical twin is gay there is about a 50% chance the other will also be gay. Even if they are raised separately. If one fraternal twin is gay there is lower chance that they will also be gay. For non-twin siblings the chances are less again. This shows that genetics do play a role, just not the only role. There are factors other than genetics also at play.

More recent studies have shown that one of the other factors at play are the effects of pre-natal hormones on fetal development of the brain. (See my earlier post with just some of the studies in the last few years)

I think you are also confusing the fact that homosexuality doesn't actually have to be genetic for someone to born homosexual. Pre-natal hormone effects occur before a person is born. Recent Hormonal studies have shown that homosexuals' brains are different in several ways to heterosexuals brains and that some of these differences were likely to be in place before a person was born. Ie: not affected by cognitive learning or social/family environment.

Quote:
"There's a converging line of evidence between the hormonal studies, the genetic studies, and the neuroanatomical studies."

Mustanski, B. S.; DuPree, M. G.; Nievergelt, C. M.; Bocklandt, S.; Schork, N. J.; Hamer, D. H. (2005)
A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] PubMed result
Quote:
Sexual hormones and the brain: an essential alliance for sexual identity and sexual orientation (2010)
Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35. Epub 2009 Nov 24. Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF.

The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb.

However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain.

There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

Last edited by Ceist; 10-12-2011 at 09:01 AM..
 
Old 10-12-2011, 08:34 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 11,769,295 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodsPrince View Post
they do choose because a recent study that took place in 2009 states there is no possibility of a gay gene. that it is the persons choice. if there was no choice there would be no such things as homosexuals turning straight. if this is possiblie how can it then be called genetic? it is as much as a choice as me choosing to grow my hair out and listening to rock. as much as a choice as me choosing a soup over a salad. and judgement is everywhere. gays believe that anyone who is not gay and does not agree with it is a nazi who is just hating because they are gay and that they are bigots. it seems to me that the more violent side is the homosexuals trying to get everyone to agree with them. and before you state that there has been absolutley no homosexuals doing that, i can tell you from personal experience that there is not. i recieved threats when i openly opposed a homosexual group wishing to form in a school near my hometown. please explain these instances.
Be not confused.....again.

There is NO 'study' from 2009 "showing there is no possibility of a gay gene" or that it's a person's "choice".

I think you are confusing a misleading media article that did the rounds of the anti-gay websites and news sources like World Nut Daily in 2009. The anti-gay crusaders were crowing that the APA had updated their fact sheet on sexual orientation in 2009. The source for this article was NARTH- the conservative anti-gay religious based fringe group who promote their much discredited so-called "reparative" therapy (aka pray away the gay/"fathers hug your sons or some gay man will!"). But like they usually do, they misrepresented what the APA wrote and left out the sentences that said "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

They also neglected to mention (or were ignorant about) that when scientists speak of 'nature' they mean genetics. And when the speak of 'nurture' they mean environment. And 'environment' also includes pre-natal environment.

The anti-gay crusaders also gloated that scientists haven't found "a gay gene". They didn't mention the fact that scientists weren't even looking for a single 'gay' gene. The whole "gay gene' thing was a 'strawman' argument.

Scientists in the field of genetics have been looking for genetic markers and genetic influences -which they did find. No scientist worth their PhD believes that human sexuality and sexual orientation could be determines by a single gene. Scientists in the field of endocrinolgy (hormones) have been studying the effects of hormones on fetal development in the womb. Scientists in the field of neurobiology have been studying the differences between the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals using fMRI scans.

Most scientists will tell you that there are a number of factors in play that determines sexual orientation, including genetics, pre-natal hormones and neurobiology. Not just one factor and perhaps not the same factor or factors for everyone. No reputable scientist will tell you that either heterosexuality or homosexuality is a choice. (or a mental illness or caused by sexual abuse or the way a child is raised)

Here is what the UK's Royal College of Psychiatrists have to say:
Quote:
"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submiss...%20England.pdf
Homosexuals do not 'turn straight' anymore than heterosexuals turn "gay". Some (mainly religious) gay people just go back in the "closet" and pretend to lead a heterosexual 'lifestyle'. Often they can't take living a life of lies anymore and end up coming back out further down the track.

A well known Christian psychologist, Warren Throckmorton, who sees gay and lesbian Christian clients who are unhappy about being homosexual because of their relgious beliefs writes:
Quote:
"In addition to clinical experience, I conducted several in depth interviews of men and women in what are termed, “mixed orientation marriages,” and I surveyed over 300 same-sex attracted men and women who are or have been married to someone of the opposite sex.


The survey was not a pre and post examination of therapy or even change efforts. However, many people disclosed change efforts and many of the participants were involved in member ministries of Exodus. I figure if change in orientation happens a lot, I would find it in this group.


That is not what I found. On the whole, the group assessed themselves as more gay in their attractions and fantasies than when they were 18 and when they were married. Most of the people were still married, but it would not be accurate to say that their orientation had changed.
2011 July 13 — Warren Throckmorton
Throckmorton's study backed up similar results from an earlier study by another Christian researcher - Mark Yarhouse from Regent University.

mark yarhouse — Warren Throckmorton

While there are many studies from a range of reputable peer-reviewed scientific sources, it's interesting to note that there are at least some honest scientists who are also Christian who agree with the vast majority of scientists and health professionals, that sexual orientation is not something that can be "changed".

As for you being called a 'bigot'? Perhaps just "sadly misinformed" would have been better term?

Last edited by Ceist; 10-12-2011 at 09:00 AM..
 
Old 10-12-2011, 09:07 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 11,769,295 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
I'm sorry - I think you're confusing me with a Christian, which I am not.
Try again at another snappy comeback if you must.

Try Sex Roles, Life Styles, and Childbearing: Changing Roles in Marriage and Family by John Scanzoni (1975) for a start. I don't have the time or inclination to disabuse you of your notion that anyone disagreeing with you is ignorant or religiously motivated. Grow up.
My apologies. I thought you were doing an impersonation of an anti-gay Christian there for a bit.

I will explain. The statement you made: "[Homosexuality] can be shown to be the results of a myriad of psychological, social and familial conditions" is incorrect.

You will only find views like these from religious based "ex-gay" groups like NARTH and Exodus (and probably Marcus Bachmann's pray away the gay clinic ) and the fake "American College of Pediatrics" which was setup by a small group of members (about 60?) who are all religious, conservative and anti-gay and whose sole focus is crusading against gay people. (As opposed to the real American Academy of Pediatric (http://www.aap.org/ - broken link)s with 60,000 clinical members.

These views have long been discredited and debunked by all the mainstream health professionals and organizations who base their views on peer-reviewed empirical evidence, not religion.

NARTH has never had any "study" published in any reputable peer-reviewed Journals, because they have a reputation for writing antigay propaganda articles misrepresenting real studies and scientists. They continually attack the APA (who has warned against the ineffectiveness and dangers of their so-called "reparative" therapy in their 2009 task force report on sexual orientation change efforts); Their "experts" have been thrown out of court in any homosexual related cases because their 'data' was unscientific and clearly religiously biased against gay people. George 'rentboy' Rekers was their 'scientific advisor' until he had to resign because of the scandal about him going on a European holiday with a 19 year old gay 'rentboy' last year. This year, George Rekers original PhD thesis from the 1970's (the basis of much of NARTH's and many other "ex-gay" groups ideas) was revealed to be based on fraudulent reports of a young effeminate boy's so-called 'successful' change from "pre-homosexual (sic) to heterosexual" under his "therapy". (It wasn't successful at all and Rekers apparently lied about quite a few things regarding this boy and his family - including not getting consent to use the case in his thesis.)

Last edited by Ceist; 10-12-2011 at 09:53 AM..
 
Old 10-12-2011, 10:34 AM
 
3,488 posts, read 3,155,602 times
Reputation: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
My apologies. I thought you were doing an impersonation of an anti-gay Christian there for a bit.

I will explain. The statement you made: "[Homosexuality] can be shown to be the results of a myriad of psychological, social and familial conditions" is incorrect.

You will only find views like these from religious based "ex-gay" groups like NARTH and Exodus (and probably Marcus Bachmann's pray away the gay clinic ) and the fake "American College of Pediatrics" which was setup by a small group of members (about 60?) who are all religious, conservative and anti-gay and whose sole focus is crusading against gay people. (As opposed to the real American Academy of Pediatric (http://www.aap.org/ - broken link)s with 60,000 clinical members.

These views have long been discredited and debunked by all the mainstream health professionals and organizations who base their views on peer-reviewed empirical evidence, not religion.

NARTH has never had any "study" published in any reputable peer-reviewed Journals, because they have a reputation for writing antigay propaganda articles misrepresenting real studies and scientists. They continually attack the APA (who has warned against the ineffectiveness and dangers of their so-called "reparative" therapy in their 2009 task force report on sexual orientation change efforts); Their "experts" have been thrown out of court in any homosexual related cases because their 'data' was unscientific and clearly religiously biased against gay people. George 'rentboy' Rekers was their 'scientific advisor' until he had to resign because of the scandal about him going on a European holiday with a 19 year old gay 'rentboy' last year. This year, George Rekers original PhD thesis from the 1970's (the basis of much of NARTH's and many other "ex-gay" groups ideas) was revealed to be based on fraudulent reports of a young effeminate boy's so-called 'successful' change from "pre-homosexual (sic) to heterosexual" under his "therapy". (It wasn't successful at all and Rekers apparently lied about quite a few things regarding this boy and his family - including not getting consent to use the case in his thesis.)
Thank you, and pardon my harsh response, please.

I'm not at all familiar with any of the groups you mention (NARTH or Exodus) and try to stay as far away from religiously-motivated 'scientific' research as possible. Like the recent trend of relabelleing Creationsim as Intelligent Design - there's a definite agenda that is being pushed for.

My comment that "[Homosexuality] can be shown to be the results of a myriad of psychological, social and familial conditions" is based on simple historical, psychological and social studies - not on homosexuality specifically, but as a general study. I agree that there are underlying genetic causes for many things (much like you pointed out above several posts higher) but that it's simplistic to start blaming everything on genes and placing undue importance on their role - much like it was popular to blame everything on the devil at one time. It tends to remove the element of human will, cause and effect, and environmental conditions.

Whether it's homosexuality, or sado-masochism, a taste for Cap'n Crunch, or a preference for the music of Whitesnake - much of these inclinations can probably be traced (if one had the tools) to environmental influences, family influences, social influences, etc. This seems to have been the cornerstone of the various studies of history, psychology, philosophy, social studies, biology, etc: why do people act the way they do? Why is the world the way it is? Why do animals act in such and such a manner? Why are some traits instinctual and others require example to learn? A perfect example is Spartan pederasty and how it was promulgated through education, generation to generation - this was part of a Spartan's cultural education on how to be a man. Surely - this is a fine example of environment, and not merely genetics. There are plenty of books on the subject, that do not condemn - but merely explore.

I just wouldn't discount the influence of the surrounding environment on the way people act. I also think this can go hand in hand with genetics, without discounting one in favor of another. Too much emphasis is put on genetics, however, in today's world - WHEN it suits a particular cause....

Nice posts above, by the way.
 
Old 10-12-2011, 10:41 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,576,087 times
Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
You're not SERIOUSLY using the old, tired argument that someone who opposes another's lifestyle choice is actually repressing their own deeply hidden desire to make the same lifestyle choice? Are you really? Most people stop using that argument in the 8th grade, or sooner if their teachers are responsible.

Nothing of the sort! (Well, perhaps just a bit!)

Instead, I'm saying people model their beliefs about others sexual orientation based on their own personal experiences.

If you don't believe you could be convinced to have same-same sex attractions, you assume the same model applies to others. Accordingly,you're likely to believe sexual orientation is not a deliberate choice.

However, if you DO believe you could be convinced to have same sex attractions, you would assume that model applies to others as well. Accordingly, you believe same-sex attraction IS a deliberate choice.

That argument may be old, but it's not tired.
 
Old 10-12-2011, 11:03 AM
 
3,488 posts, read 3,155,602 times
Reputation: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Nothing of the sort! (Well, perhaps just a bit!)

Instead, I'm saying people model their beliefs about others sexual orientation based on their own personal experiences.

If you don't believe you could be convinced to have same-same sex attractions, you assume the same model applies to others. Accordingly,you're likely to believe sexual orientation is not a deliberate choice.

However, if you DO believe you could be convinced to have same sex attractions, you would assume that model applies to others as well. Accordingly, you believe same-sex attraction IS a deliberate choice.

That argument may be old, but it's not tired.
Ah, that's a better way of putting it, then.

Yes, I would agree that one's personal experiences will definately inform one's views on things. However - I would not automatically use that information to discount that person's observations: people do have the ability to be objective, though difficult at times, and if they back up their statements with relatively objective facts, then the argument doesn't apply anymore.

It might also be said there is always a slight bias behind anything - even academic papers written with an attempt at objectivity not normally found in normal discourse. That's the biggest enemy of academics and their papers - eliminating the bias that might color their results and effect their research. Peer-review is a helpful friend in this endeavor.

In the end - projecting (is that the term for what we're talking about?) is not always at work, in my opinion. And it smacks too much of the other argument "you accuse someone of [x], because you are actually [x]" - which is closer to the current one than first glance would betray. It happens, of course, but not automatically, and not as influentially equal in all cases.
 
Old 10-13-2011, 01:27 PM
 
3 posts, read 1,926 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
So you could choose to be attracted to men? (And by you, I mean "YOU".)

Not just choose to have sex with men, but you could decide to actually prefer to have anal sex with other men as your favorite form of sex? You think that may be a latent possibility deep down inside of you? You could one day just decide to not be attracted to women, and convince some part of yourself to be attracted to men?


If so, tell me how that would happen?
it is up to the person but not just instantly wanting to, other things that happen to the person, say me, that will change the persons mind. on a personal note i had a friend choose to be lesbian because she had horrible dating history with boys. so is she just trying to hide the fact that she was born with it or is she seriously changing due to that fact? and now i ask a question to you, if one is born gay or lesbian how can one change from gay to straight as many have before
 
Old 10-13-2011, 01:41 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,576,087 times
Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodsPrince View Post
and now i ask a question to you, if one is born gay or lesbian how can one change from gay to straight as many have before

Some people, maybe most people, are not completely gay or not completely straight. Sociatal pressures can force one to repress their attractions and keep them hidden.

If by "choosing to be gay" you mean choosing not to repress those same-sex attractions, then I agree with you.

If by "choosing to be gay" you mean choosing the sex which they are attracted to, I disagree.

Admittedly I say this based on my own intuition. I simply can't imagine a situtation where I could choose to be attracted to people of the same sex. But I could imagine a situtation where I would repress my attration to people of the opposite sex.

But perhaps it's like dark beers, an acquired taste.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top