NationStates Jolt Archive

A) The rediculous ammount of health risks accioated with it, nothing that you are BORN to be is that damaging to health.



Really? So no one is born with cystic fibrosis? Or cerebral palsy? Or blindness? Can people with a predisposition for heart disease just decide not to have heart disease?

Oh, and not to flame you, but if you want to convince people you're not a "forum newbie", don't double-post. There's a thing called "Edit post".

Ah, but I didn't double post. ;)

What is that?

Why doesn't it surprise me you have never heard of PubMed? Its a journal databaes where you can search hundreds (probably thousands now) of scientific journals for abstracts and information on various topics.



1) There is no such thing as being "born gay". People can be more likely to be gay as a result of some genetic factors and hormonal imbalances but in no way does it MAKE you certian to be gay.
[

And people can be genetically predisposed to be tall but can still be short. Doesn't make it a choice.


2) The main factor that decides whether someone is gay or not is ENVIROMENTAL factors, not genetic ones. As far as I have seen the proof that homosexuality is genetic is flawed on the basis of the following problems


And yet its still not a choice.


A) The rediculous ammount of health risks accioated with it, nothing that you are BORN to be is that damaging to health.

I guess you've never heard of Down Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Transposition of the Great Vessels, Tetralogy of Fallot, G6PD Deficiency, Tay Sachs Disease, and a million on things that people are born to be that are damaging.

And the health risks associated with homosexuality are not different than the ones associated with heterosexuality. Straight people get STDs, they deal with depression, they have problems too. The only thing you are more likely to get if you are gay is depression and I wonder why that is? <sarcasm>


B) The idea of a geneitc condition which could then stop said condition from ever being passed on is stupid. It would have died out by now if it started off at the beginging of human history. You can say its "complex" and that "molecular genetics" allow for it, but frankly its just stupid. And to those who say that homosexuality is a mutation designed to deal with an overcrowded planet, how would genes know if the planet is overcrowded?

Let's assume for a moment that being gay is a one gene phenotype (the physical expression of a gene) that is expressed recessively (you have to have two copies of the gene to be gay, one copy means you are straight but can pass that gene on to your child). This is something similiar to Sickle Cell Anemia (though *IT* causes harm in and of itself, while homosexuality does not). The "gay gene" can hang around in the population for billions of generations assuming that 1. It is passed on with equal frequency as the heterosexual version of the human sexuality gene and 2. Being a heterozygote (one gay gene, one straigh one) does not significantly hinder your ability to reprodice. Ergo, the gay gene should not disappear out of the population anymore than any other gene that does not select for a specific advantage in the heterozygous form.

You have me at a disadvantage in religion. But if you want to bring in genetics, you are gonna get a fight. Molecular biology was my undergraduate major and the basis of my Honor's Thesis. This is stuff I know.

Well, mostly it's flawed because for something to be genetical, there has to be a gene for it (that's "gene" and not "gen" in English, right?), which there isn't. Human DNA is fully mapped, according to this science magazine I read (Scandinavian Illustrert Vitenskap/Science Illustrated) but no "Gay Gene" has been found.


That's becaues there is not a single "gay gene". I used that assumption earlier to make a point aobut why homosexuality could hang around in the population (not that you would know that when you wrote this, but its called CYA). Anything as complex as behavior and sexuality will have a myriad of associated genes and other involved factors. Heck, having brown hair takes more than one gene.


I so wish that was true. But sadly it happens that babies are born damaged. Take babies born with... say... cancer? Hazardous to your health? You bet! Something some babies are born with? Sadly, yes. :( Genetical? I don't know about cancer being genetical, but a lot of diseases and other mean stuff is.


Cancer can be highly genetic. The Knudson hypothesis, proto-oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes and all that jazz.

GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD!

Seriously I am getting fed up of explaing the same thing to diffrent people, to all the newbs to this thread, go back and read it before you ask anything. I think its fair to say I have been on here the longest and I'm getting fed up of upstart newbs asking questions which have been delt with a long time back.

Fnoridish Infamy, you only have 14 posts in total, never mind on this thread, so come back when you have read it through. And dont give me this "I cant be bothered" nonsense. If you rearly want an answer then you will be willing to find it.

I've been in and out of this thread a lot. And I dont' recall any health risks (at least not ones that are REAL) being pointed out. It's true I haven't read every article, but then I"m not going to do so. If you want people to believe you, you just have to be willing to share the info. multiple times.

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

Actually....God 'nuked' both cities, not because of the homosexual activity going on within, but because of the fact that the city's inhabitants tride to RAPE his messangers. A man by the name of Lott tried to protect them from the mobs outside his home and for this his family was saved.

Granted, his wife was turned into a pillar of salt, but that was because the bitch didn't listen to what the Angels had to say.

Yes, I agree with Dshen, I just read that in Genesis a week ago...and it was because they were raping, it has nothing to do with homosexuals.... You using some fascist bible? :D j/k...

Actually....God 'nuked' both cities, not because of the homosexual activity going on within, but because of the fact that the city's inhabitants tride to RAPE his messangers. A man by the name of Lott tried to protect them from the mobs outside his home and for this his family was saved.


but the story CANNOT be about God denouncing rape, because Lot offers to let the mob rape his daughters if they will leave the angels alone. so clearly God supports rape, as long as the victims are virgin girls whose father says it's okay to rape them.

but the story CANNOT be about God denouncing rape, because Lot offers to let the mob rape his daughters if they will leave the angels alone. so clearly God supports rape, as long as the victims are virgin girls whose father says it's okay to rape them.

Bottle i respect the hell out of your positions, even agree with them for the most part but snarky answers like that are designed to close someones mind to your side whether intentionally or not. Morality back then was a hell of a lot different than it is now, judging them by our standards isnt really that productive. In fact thats what we're trying to get people to STOP doing...judging others by standards thousands of years ago when life was a whole hell of a lot harder.

Bottle i respect the hell out of your positions, even agree with them for the most part but snarky answers like that are designed to close someones mind to your side whether intentionally or not. Morality back then was a hell of a lot different than it is now, judging them by our standards isnt really that productive. In fact thats what we're trying to get people to STOP doing...judging others by standards thousands of years ago when life was a whole hell of a lot harder.
snarky? that's what the Bible SAYS! Lot offers his virgin daughters to the rapacious mob, and God saves Lot and his family (sans mother). there are two possible conclusions from this:

1. God supports rape, and therefore we are wrong to punish rape, as long as the victims are young virgin girls whose father says it is okay to rape them.
2. the authors of the Bible placed their own connotations on many areas, including this story, and therefore we shouldn't base our sexual ethics on Biblical stories because they will not fit with modern morality.

if 1, i don't see any reason why somebody would worship the God of the Bible. if 2, then the Bible is useless as a tool for founding morality, since we are just going to follow the bits we like and ignore the ones we don't.

snarky? that's what the Bible SAYS! Lot offers his virgin daughters to the rapacious mob, and God saves Lot and his family (sans mother). there are two possible conclusions from this:

1. God supports rape, and therefore we are wrong to punish rape, as long as the victims are young virgin girls whose father says it is okay to rape them.
2. the authors of the Bible placed their own connotations on many areas, including this story, and therefore we shouldn't base our sexual ethics on Biblical stories because they will not fit with modern morality.

if 1, i don't see any reason why somebody would worship the God of the Bible. if 2, then the Bible is useless as a tool for founding morality, since we are just going to follow the bits we like and ignore the ones we don't.


Yeah snarky. You know bringing that up is just going to kick any headway that may have been made, if not admitted, right in the balls. The first step in changing someones mind about something is getting them to consider other options....a post like that..whether factual or not is presented in such a way as to close someones mind, put them on the defensive, and make them feel like theyre being attacked.


Christianity has done a lot of good for a lot of people, as well its done a lot of evils in the name of itself...you'll find that flows with just about anything humans stick their fingers in and it applies to any religion you can think of.

i think that if you belong to a certasin religion that it is a sin. but other cultures and religions say otehr wise, personally i think that having homosexuality as a sin is descrimination to the fullest.

How does a 'set of genes' which stopps themselves from being passed down continue.Ok, the way it works is like this: Some expressions of a gene/set of genes cause the individual to not reproduce, but to help siblings/relatives reproduce, some of which will have a copy of that gene. The effect is strong enough that the net result is that the gene successfully increases its number in the gene pool. It may sound farfetched, but it explains how, say, ant colonies can exist where the vast majority of individuals are sterile. No, I don't know how this mechanism applies to homosexuality. (I would point out however, that homosexuals can and do reproduce). I'm sure I've already explained this a few times.

I rush round the corner of the street to get to the multi story's entrence but in doing so I knock over and old women who cracks her head on the pavement and later dies from her injuries. Now what should God have done. Should he make me got dressed faster or slower so as to let the old women go past. Should he have made me more aware of the time so I did not rush. Should he have saved the old woman by letting her bag break her fall.Yes. To one of the above.
Suposing he did that sort of thing on a regular basis throught the entire world in every smallest situation where something bad may happen.Strawman.
What sort of world would that be. Meaningless. Our actions would have no concequence because God would interviene on every smallest thing to make sure nothing bad happened. That would be like never growing up, our parents constantly covering for us.Yup. But what sort of parent lets their child get killed to teach them a lesson? A bad one, that's what sort. There is a middle ground.

If he wanted people to choose to love him, then he wouldn't give them only two choices: heaven or hell. Thus, anyone who believes in him MUST "choose" to love him or they'll reap eternal damnation. I hardly call that a choice.Then how would he do it? Can you think of a better way?Easily. Let in anyone that can get along with others reasonably well.

TIts not like God is standing there with a gun or something saying "Love me or I will send you to hell". If he had that mentality then why would he have sent Jesus. Jesus saved us all. We now can be with God forever. If it was a threat, then why did Jesus die?So he could lay a guilt trip on us. "See how much I've suffered for you, and it's all your fault". Yeah, I know it's not biblical, but if God <i>was</i> (hypothetically!) this sort of personality, he'd lie.

Well everyone on here seems to be. Everyone is out to disprove me and prove God isnt real.Not me. I have big, big problems with your specific conception of God. But God in the general? :meh:

but the story CANNOT be about God denouncing rape, because Lot offers to let the mob rape his daughters if they will leave the angels alone. so clearly God supports rape, as long as the victims are virgin girls whose father says it's okay to rape them.
Lot wasn't a messenger of God. He just thought it would be better to sacrifice his daughters than to piss of angels. Judging by what happened to the city, he might have been right.

The Knudson hypothesis Is that the two hit knockout theory? I just finished studying my genetics segment...

Not me. I have big, big problems with your specific conception of God. But God in the general? :meh: I agree! The world would be a much better place is people internalised their religious views rather than insisting they're right and imposing their views on other people.

And on the hypothalamus issue, I've heard about that too. Has anyone proposed why? My best guess would be an intrauteine hormone balance that differs from the norm.
And here's an excerpt from PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12839890)
"
People discover rather than choose their sexual interests. The process of discovery typically begins before the onset of puberty and is associated with an increase in the secretion of sex hormones from the adrenal glands. However, the determinants of the direction of sexual interest, in the sense of preferences for the same or opposite sex, are earlier. These preferences, although not manifest until much later in development, appear to be caused by the neural organizational effects of intrauterine hormonal events. Variations in these hormonal events likely have several causes and two of these appear to have been identified for males. One cause is genetic and the other involves the sensitization of the maternal immune system to some aspect of the male fetus. It is presently unclear how these two causes relate to each other. The most important question for future research is whether preferences for particular-aged partners and parts of the male courtship sequence share causes similar to those of erotic gender orientation."
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Jun;989:105-17; discussion 144-53.

There we go.

Lot wasn't a messenger of God. He just thought it would be better to sacrifice his daughters than to piss of angels. Judging by what happened to the city, he might have been right.

It wasn't Lot that was being referred to that the people wanted to rape. It was the angels.

Is that the two hit knockout theory? I just finished studying my genetics segment...


That's it precisely. It applies to Tumor Supressor genes, but not to proto-oncogenes.

Man this thread has more roundabouts than Birmingham. So under the 'do unto others..' rule, if someone with a white stick was walking towards a precipice you'd say 'it's none of my business, I won't do anything'. Because that's how non-Christians appear to Christians.Substitute "some Christians" for "Christians". But yeah, I understand this. Naturally, I disagree with their interpretation of my situation, but, mistaken or otherwise, it is kind of them to look out for me.

I you hadn't noticed, no human is perfect, not even the beloved leader, Mr Bush (HAIL BUSH)(kidding). But if no-one pointed the bad stuff out to you, we'd all be fucked! The issues you should have are not with Christians trying to help you in a respectful manner but with people who literally point the finger and tell other people that they're shit. Jesus classed this type of people as hypocritical.There are some people here who say (essentially) that everyone is shit. This doesn't make them hypocrits, or evil or anything like that, but the idea is damaging and untrue, and it pushes my buttons like anything.

Its a sticky situation. You cant just allow gay marriages with out allowing other types. like polygamy.Sure you can. A number of countries have done exactly that. Now sooner or later they may have to justify leaving polygamists out. But how is that a bad thing?

You all seem to want the other side to shut up and stop looking at things their way... while they want you to shut up and look at things their way.It would be nice if "the other side" at least understood how I look at things. Some do, many don't.

Biologically, your brain finishes the final stage of development at age twelve. Plus or minus a year or two. Go read basic psychology.From what I've read your information is out of date. The relevant article (which I don't have a copy of) is appearently Giedd JN, Jeffries NO, Blumenthal J et al. (1999), Childhood-onset schizophrenia: progressive brain changes during adolescence. Given the gross nature of our understanding of the brain and its connection to mind, I don't think it is appropriate to decide when the age of consent should be based on our knowledge of brain development.

In ancient Greece - one of the greatest of all Mankind's civilizations - homosexuality was not just standard, but celebrated. While it was acceptable for 12 year old boys to fool around, a 35-year-old still could not pick up a teenager.My understanding was that it was expected for teenagers to have sex with men. Which doesn't mean it was harmless or right, and I don't foresee it happening in our (very different) culture.

I forget the latin term for the fallacy in that argument but its roughly translated to If this:than thatpost hoc ergo prompter hoc. "after this, therefore because of this."</geek>

Follow logic through for a second. Are you saying God would outlaw one form of homosexuality but let the other one go? Why would he do that? And dont come back with "Why would he even outlaw one form of homosexuality" for these two reasons

A) I asked first (childish I know but sometimes that seems the only way to speek to some of you)

B) The reason that God would outlaw it has been explained throughout the thread. It is not how God wanted us to behave in regards to sex as he wanted sex to be something special between man and women as a result of love. Go read all the posts by those who beleive homosexuality is a sin and you will see why it is.

Next time, try responding to what I said.

"That line speaks out (at most) against *SEX* between two *MEN*, not against all forms of homosexuality."

Because in our beloved postmodern society, it seems to be fasionable to not only be diffrent because of who you are already, but to go out of the way to make yourself more diffrent. And that is (for some people, not all) why they think they are becoming homosexual.

And what is wrong with being different?

A) The rediculous ammount of health risks accioated with it, nothing that you are BORN to be is that damaging to health.

What health risks? You never mentioned any health risks for homosexuals.
Oh sure, health risks for anal sex, unprotected sex, sex with lots of different people, probably oral sex too, but not homosexuality.

Tell me, is there some reason you can't differentiate between the two?

The answer is that homo-sexuality is a sin, but I think the question that really needs answering is "Will I be judged and condemned for being a homosexual?" This is the question that needs to be asked, because regardless of the nature of the act, the sinner should only be concerned with how his nature will affect his opportunity at achieving eternal life. Wha??? Should not the sinner be concerned with doing what is moral? I know I am.
For us to believe that God cannot save us from ourselves (our sinful genes, desires and character that we were born with or have developed) is for us to disbelieve God, and in essence claim that He is a liar.I don't believe God is a liar; I don't believe He exists. And for believers there is another possibility; believing that the Bible is not the word of God, and is mistaken on some points.

The line is in Leviticus 18:22 "A man shall not lie with a man, for that is an abomination" or something to that extent. So yes it does say in scripture that homosexuality is a sin.So you define homosexuality as a man having sex with a man? That's a somewhat unusual definition.

And to those who say you are, I say, look at the example of China, possibly the country with the largest Gay population in the world and why. Well posibly that its also the country with the largest population in the world ...This would make sense, no?

"The accurate number of homosexuals remains unclear. From one source, the number has reached between 360,000 and 480,000, another statement based on Chinese government documents and academic studies states the figure is 15 million. Camparing to the proportion of the homosexuals in other countries, some people think these figures are not much convinced."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China

"China's overall population, the largest in the world, is 1.3 billion."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China

Heck, if anything, there are fewer than expected gays in China.

If you believe the first version, God made humankind in God's image - but there is no reason to believe the first people were hermaphrodites.In the original Hebrew, God is referred to using both masculine and feminine (and occasionally plural!) grammar forms. I know not Hebrew, so I can't go into detail.

Wheter or not those enviromental factors affect a person may not be up to them but what I am saying is that it is possible that someone who is gay in one circumstance would not be gay if his/her life were diffrent.Sure, I suppose that's possible. But as the causes of homosexuality are unknown, it's not a choice in practice. Not the orientation anyway; folks can (subject to consent!) choose who they have sex with.

And what are these health risks?GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD!I take it you're going to continue to ignore all evidence that your so-called health risks are nonsense?

this thread is pointless...the same things keep getting said over and over again

nothing either side says seems to be changing anyones opinions or beliefs

What health risks? You never mentioned any health risks for homosexuals.
Oh sure, health risks for anal sex, unprotected sex, sex with lots of different people, probably oral sex too, but not homosexuality.

Tell me, is there some reason you can't differentiate between the two?

Yes, becuase the risks from gay sex are FAR HIGHER than hetrosexual sex. Go back to some of my posts and see the URL's I have posted.

Yes, becuase the risks from gay sex are FAR HIGHER than hetrosexual sex. Go back to some of my posts and see the URL's I have posted.
It's ANAL sex, unprotected anal sex. Straight people do it too, and not all gay people do.

But why am I bothering? You won't listen.

I don't believe God is a liar; I don't believe He exists. And for believers there is another possibility; believing that the Bible is not the word of God, and is mistaken on some points.


If you dont believe in God then thats fine. But what right does that give you to insult and poke fun at the views of others. The thread is for people to discuss the views of Christians and why they have them


This would make sense, no?
"China's overall population, the largest in the world, is 1.3 billion."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China

"The accurate number of homosexuals remains unclear. From one source, the number has reached between 360,000 and 480,000, another statement based on Chinese government documents and academic studies states the figure is 15 million. Camparing to the proportion of the homosexuals in other countries, some people think these figures are not much convinced."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China

Heck, if anything, there are fewer than expected gays in China.


Check the rest of the thread. The gay population rise in China is out of proportion with there genral population rise. It is far higher, primaryly because (as the rest of my thread said) that there are far more men than women in China. Having a girl as your only child is looked on badly by Chinese society and so they are often abandoned or killed. And if you are going to listen to anything the Chinese government says, you need to seriously reconsdier your source useage.



I take it you're going to continue to ignore all evidence that your so-called health risks are nonsense?

Why? At least support your points. I've already supported mine prevoiouly with URL's.

It's ANAL sex, unprotected anal sex. Straight people do it too, and not all gay people do.

But why am I bothering? You won't listen.

Anal sex is (as the URL points out) normal sexual practice for gay couples.

Anal sex is (as the URL points out) normal sexual practice for gay couples.
So what? Uncircumcised men have a greater risk of contracting STI's. Should we forcibly circumcise men? Is being uncircumcised an affront to you? Not the way it was supposed to be?

Anal sex is (as the URL points out) normal sexual practice for gay couples.

Even if it were, we are discussing homosexuality, not anal sex.

Even if it were, we are discussing homosexuality, not anal sex.
I wonder if this thread comes up as a result on porn searches yet

People are just intolerant, that’s the only reason. If I was as intolerant to religious types as they are to us ‘ I’m not gay but I mean none members of their religion ’ I would of personally killed half the population of the UK by now I swear.

These people would see scientists put in trial as witches and free living people beheaded for not admitting belief in a god that there is no proof that exists if it wasn’t for them losing their power when civilisation formed.

Luckily for us they have no where near the amount of control they had in the dark ages today so they stew in rage that they cannot simple kill everyone who disagrees with them so go for more civilized means of forcing their faith onto others.

Discriminating against gays is just one such method of civilized hate crime.

People are just intolerant, that’s the only reason. If I was as intolerant to religious types as they are to us ‘ I’m not gay but I mean none members of their religion ’ I would of personally killed half the population of the UK by now I swear.
But.. you're not dead (apparently) soo.. you're wrong?

These people would see scientists put in trial as witches and free living people beheaded for not admitting belief in a god that there is no proof that exists if it wasn’t for them losing their power when civilisation formed.

Luckily for us they have no where near the amount of control they had in the dark ages today so they stew in rage that they cannot simple kill everyone who disagrees with them so go for more civilized means of forcing their faith onto others.
I can't remember Henry VIII or Queen Mary being on the throne for a couple of centuries now. I'll guess that's what you're referring to. Plus, that was an intra-Church thing. I'm not aware of visiting Moslems being hanged for not being protestant/catholic. I suggest you get your facts right on that one then look over the other stuff in your post.

Discriminating against gays is just one such method of civilized hate crime.
But religious types (Christians at least) shouldn't discriminate against anyone, and I'd question the existence of 'civilized hate'.

Perhaps, but the truth of the matter is that 8 partners would not fit into the current legal construct known as marriage. All of the protections are specifically designed for 2 people. In order to recognize polygamy, a new code of laws to regulate this new institution would have to be passed.

My point was not whether or not we *should* allow polygamy, it was simply that the statement that it directly follows from allowing homosexuals to marry is pure stupidity.

I agree. The 'slippery slope' arguments against marriage are, at very best, flawed logic... and at worst - an inane blanket to cover up for a lack of real debatable points.

My view, however, is that America is currently, and has historically benn doing so, pursuing a path of removal of rights.

Before Utah can join the union of states, Mormons have to agree to Momogamy. The 18th Amendment (fact check?) was designed to specifically remove the right to drink alcohol. 11 states are currently the engineers of constitutional amendments aimed SPECIFICALLY at limiting the rights of a minority.

"Liberty and justice for all. Except YOU people...."

But religious types (Christians at least) shouldn't discriminate against anyone, and I'd question the existence of 'civilized hate'.

Lets get this clear

1) Christians do not 'hate' gays. That is they do not discriminate against them because of it.
2) Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is in both testements. However, it is a sin like any other which can be wiped away by God through acceptence of Jesus as saviour and the admission of sin (IE, becoming a Christian. I can explain this in more detail but I wont now)
3) The problem the Church (Or the sectors of the church which see homosexuality as a sin (the majority)) has is with those who are openly gay and unrepentent of it. To them openly gay people are saying "I sin as a part of who I am. I do not repent of that, I am proud of my sinful life because I sin" and for them it is hard to accept. The Chrch wants to do its best to understand these people, not condemn them.
4) There are people out there who use the Christian example as an excuse to hate gays. These are not Christians.

Marriage as an institution did not exist for a long time. Marriage as an idea however existed at the begining of time and Gay marriage is not a part of the idea (see Genesis 2: 24)


Only if you believe the bible - which I don't, and for very good reason. One part of that being, other people already had written histories long before the bible accepts that the world was even created (depending on which 'age' you believe in Genesis). How can people have had written histories BEFORE the world was created? Simple - the recorded time for the creation of the world is wrong.

Also - try reading it in Hebrew - there is plenty of scope to read the text as a very local event - the same as the flood.


You rearly should research before you enter these threads. The line is in Leviticus 18:22 "A man shall not lie with a man, for that is an abomination" or something to that extent. So yes it does say in scripture that homosexuality is a sin.


You really shoud research before you enter these threads. The line in Leviticus 18:22 is a mistranslation, and a closer translation would read "A Man shall not lie with a menstruating woman, for it is unclean"

Anyway - could you be more irrelevant? Even if your interpretation of scripture was correct - which it isn't - that would only forbid SEX between those partners, not Marriage. The Bible makes NO adverse judgement about whether a man LOVES a man, or a woman LOVES a woman.


Show me a religion that in its original doctrine (holy book) that homosexual marriage is an idea that is supported (not just not mentioned and so we assume its ok)


I find this ironic, when you are quoting from a politically motivated translation of someone else's holy book....


The same reason that we dont offend Muslims or Hindus or any other religion. People seem to forget Christianity when it comes to political correctness, though they are quite happy to protect Muslims


That is because christians have chosen to ignore political correctness. You opt out, you don't really get to complain if other people snipe at you.


You must understand. To Christians who see homosexuality as a sin, the idea of Gay marriage is like letting two people who are openly rapeists, thives, murderes and unrepentent for it go into church and have a union just for their sinning type. Homosexuality may be a sin just like other sins but unlike other sins, people are becoming prideful about it. To the church this presents a problem. How can you be prideful in sin? How can you say "I sin and I am proud of it an unrepentent".

No. You are, I'm afraid, very wrong. Homosexuals aren't asking for a 'union just for their sinning type'. They are asking for the same RIGHTS that are accorded to heterosexual couples... that is NOT a religious issue - anymore than civil marriages are a religious issue.

Also - let me point something out. The laws of the land are something that christians are supposed to respect... I can find you several bible quotes for that, if you wish. (Matthew 22:21 leaps instantly to mind. Colossians 3:22, also). This does not mean that Christians are supposed to WRITE the laws of the land, or alter them to THEIR wishes.

And, furthermore, Christians are supposed to remain seperate from the other people (2 Corinthians 6:17, for example... or Luke 6:22). So - by biblical precedent, Christians SHOULD NOT be allowing their religion to dictate the laws of their land, and should be keeping themselves apart from the society that they shun.

By that token... the current 'evil' of 11 states voting to ban gay marriage, is not just against the constitution (liberty and justice to all), but also against the will of God.

Before you judge the sins of another, reconcile your own sins.

What you are victim of here, is assuredness that you are right, even when you act outside of the word of god. That is pride, and you are not repentant... when the homosexual arrives in your 'hell', you will be greeting them.

That is because christians have chosen to ignore political correctness. You opt out, you don't really get to complain if other people snipe at you.


I was soooo waiting for this.

Its not like Muslims are in favour of homosexuality, and they are far more fundimental in their line on homosexuality and all other religons. Many Muslim states revile Christianity and Judaisim in their education system from an early age. And many prominant and popular (Not fringe) Muslim leaders support the murder of homosexuals with no provocation other than being Gay and the hunting down of Jews inside Islamic states.

Only if you believe the bible - which I don't, and for very good reason. One part of that being, other people already had written histories long before the bible accepts that the world was even created (depending on which 'age' you believe in Genesis). How can people have had written histories BEFORE the world was created? Simple - the recorded time for the creation of the world is wrong.


Show me where in the bible they say how old the world is. And who are these who have written historys before the bible says the world was created. Nowhere does the Bible explain how old the world is. You can try and add up the ages of various people and such but that only gets you so far. Ergo you cant prove that Genesis is inacurate.

You really shoud research before you enter these threads. The line in Leviticus 18:22 is a mistranslation, and a closer translation would read "A Man shall not lie with a menstruating woman, for it is unclean"


Can you read hebrew. If you can't I would be careful insulting the work of several dozen Hebrew experts from over twelve countries who produced the NIV and all the other experts in the other translations. I for one am willing to trust the NIV as there is no reason why it would be translated wrong. These people are experts, they did not take several years for nothing.

Funny, your wonderful paradise of postmodern media seems to think so. Or else why would the commision for racial equality be so often sticking its nose into the BBC, claiming that programs are offending people, defending their right not to be offended.

Off-topic, I know... but it's been bugging me, and I just have to ask...

Did you just learn the word 'postmodern'?

Are they going to tell you what it means next week?

Yes, becuase the risks from gay sex are FAR HIGHER than hetrosexual sex. Go back to some of my posts and see the URL's I have posted.

The risks from gay sex are higher for certain diseases (which you still refuse to list) and they risks from straight sex are higher from others. I fail to see the connection to one and not the other.

Anal sex is (as the URL points out) normal sexual practice for gay couples.

Well I haven't seen that URL, but I can tell you simply that isn't true. For gay COUPLES in committed relationships maybe. But not for the average gay man--and certainly not for lesbians. Is there a reason you are leaving them out? Most gay men involve themselves in mutual maturbation or in oral sex. Anal sex comes in a distant third for those not in monogamous relationships. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but its not the overwhelming majority.

I was soooo waiting for this.
Neo, remember that Grave_n_idle's mostly coming from a Separation of Church and State angle. He doesn't follow the Bible and picks various holes in whatever scripture you're going to throw at him, mostly insignificant loopholes and technicalities which Bible writers hadn't thought of at the time. No offense G_n_I.

The fact is that a government which has elected to leave Christian Beliefs behind is under no obligation to follow them, however much they coincide with common sense. I do feel that the US should remove 'In God We Trust' from their banknotes, for this very reason.

However he does like quoting the 'reconcile your own sins before judging others' one wrongly. No human outside the justice system (in an ideal world) should judge another human. Th act he's thinking of is the New Testament endorsed practice of respectfully pointing out people's slip-ups. This is really quite useful. As Ape-president should try realising at some point.

Let's get this clear:


1) Christians do not 'hate' gays. That is they do not discriminate against them because of it.


Some Christians do. Not all I will agree. But ever hear of godhatesfag.org? Ever hear of the consitutional amendments banning same sex marriage? Those two are hate and discrimination.


2) Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is in both testements. However, it is a sin like any other which can be wiped away by God through acceptence of Jesus as saviour and the admission of sin (IE, becoming a Christian. I can explain this in more detail but I wont now)


I have no problem with this statement as long as Christians keep it to themselves and let me live my life in a free country as an equal.


3) The problem the Church (Or the sectors of the church which see
homosexuality as a sin (the majority)) has is with those who are openly gay and unrepentent of it. To them openly gay people are saying "I sin as a part of who I am. I do not repent of that, I am proud of my sinful life because I sin" and for them it is hard to accept. The Chrch wants to do its best to understand these people, not condemn them.


And yet many Christians DO condemn us. They judge us daily. While I will admit you've done a fairly good job of not being judgemental, even you should see why many homosexuals are fearful/angry with Christians.

When you see things like the people at Matthew Shephard's funeral where signs are being held that say "He's burning in hell now!" or "Ma aren';t your proud of your fag son?" being held by an organized Christian group, its kind of hard not to form your own opinions.


4) There are people out there who use the Christian example as an excuse to hate gays. These are not Christians.

Tell them that.

People who choose to be gay or lesbian have the same rights as everyone else! They can marry someone of the opposite sex. That is the only option for straight people as well.

:D

I was soooo waiting for this.

Its not like Muslims are in favour of homosexuality, and they are far more fundimental in their line on homosexuality and all other religons. Many Muslim states revile Christianity and Judaisim in their education system from an early age. And many prominant and popular (Not fringe) Muslim leaders support the murder of homosexuals with no provocation other than being Gay and the hunting down of Jews inside Islamic states.

Ummmmm, the referred to opting out of PC was about THIS country. Obviously the same thing does not exist in totalitarian Middle East countries where they don't have PC. Martyr much?

When you see things like the people at Matthew Shephard's funeral where signs are being held that say "He's burning in hell now!" or "Ma aren't your proud of your fag son?" being held by an organized Christian group, its kind of hard not to form your own opinions.
That's what happens when 'christians' don't read their own text, or get told what they should believe by false teachers.

The people may be Christians but they've been seriously misled by those who really will become 'hommes et femmes brulees' on Hell's hearthrug.

Thats awesome. All im going to say on my religious choice is that i am not religious but am very spiritual. And am also openly gay. Yet I have been told i am easier to get along with, follow laws more consistantly, and generally have a greater level of joy (joy not happiness mind you) then most of my friends and parents who are christian. Yet I seem to follow laws and act more honorably than they do. Clearly because they are typical people and run red lights, speed, cut through parking lots, steal from work (pens, money, whatever, its all theft) they deserve more rights than I simply because of the way I was born.

Can you read hebrew. If you can't I would be careful insulting the work of several dozen Hebrew experts from over twelve countries who produced the NIV and all the other experts in the other translations. I for one am willing to trust the NIV as there is no reason why it would be translated wrong. These people are experts, they did not take several years for nothing.

Can you read Hebrew?

Okay. Let's take it a step at a time.

(There are people on this forum better than I at this job, but I will suffice).

Leviticus 18:22, commonly read as "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

In Hebrew: Vayikra: "‏וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תֹּועֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃"

(I seem to be having something of a problem getting my interface to recognise all the symbols, but you get the message).

Transliterated: "Shakab Zakar Mishkab 'ishshah Tow'ebah"

Well - the whole area of text is aimed at men... that much is implicit in the text... but, let's go through the Hebrew of 18:22

Shakab = To lie down; to make lie down; to lie down with; or to lie down (for sexual relations).

Zakar = Male (either of human or of animal)... given context, we can assume it means human male.

Mishkab = A couch or bed; the act of lying down; a bed room; or the act of lying down (for sexual relations).

'ishshah = Woman; wife; female animal; or pronouns "each" or "every".

Tow'ebah = A disgusting thing, in a ritual sense... as of unclean foods; or; a disgusting thing in an ethical sense... as in wickedness.

To lie down; Man; in the bed of (or 'for sexual contact with); a woman; is unclean.

So: Traslation gives: "For a man to lie in the bed of a woman is unclean";
OR; "For a man to have sexual contact with a woman is unclean".

Further Note: I have been informed by others, far more adept with Hebrew than I, that the specific phrasing implies a reference to menstruation... which would certainly make more SENSE than just a blanket statement that 'men and women having sex is dirty'.

Did that help?

Thats awesome. All im going to say on my religious choice is that i am not religious but am very spiritual. And am also openly gay. Yet I have been told i am easier to get along with, follow laws more consistantly, and generally have a greater level of joy (joy not happiness mind you) then most of my friends and parents who are christian. Yet I seem to follow laws and act more honorably than they do. Clearly because they are typical people and run red lights, speed, cut through parking lots, steal from work (pens, money, whatever, its all theft) they deserve more rights than I simply because of the way I was born.
Well, life sucks. But at least your friends should feel more guilty than you about various transgressions. What do your parents feel about your homosexuality?

Further Note: I have been informed by others, far more adept with Hebrew than I, that the specific phrasing implies a reference to menstruation... which would certainly make more SENSE than just a blanket statement that 'men and women having sex is dirty'.
Be careful what you take as read from Keruvalia. Almost as anti scripture/Christianity as you!

Further Note: I have been informed by others, far more adept with Hebrew than I, that the specific phrasing implies a reference to menstruation... which would certainly make more SENSE than just a blanket statement that 'men and women having sex is dirty'.
Because clearly the human species typically asexually reproduces.

personally i think its all about the love... only humans love. It is our unique role! So it doesnt matter who you love just as long as you love...hands up who thinks love is wrong? ...didnt think so

Well, life sucks. But at least your friends should feel more guilty than you about various transgressions. What do your parents feel about your homosexuality?
*shrug* they don't approve and are still working on learning to tolerate and then accept it. I don't care what they think of me for it. I only want them to understand what they are doing to me and my mate if they <i>do</i> begin to become anti-gay

personally i think its all about the love... only humans love. It is our unique role! So it doesnt matter who you love just as long as you love...hands up who thinks love is wrong? ...didnt think so
acctually other animals do love. I appologize for being unable to recall the animals but several that are monogamus (sp?) will commit suicide over loss of a mate.

Well, life sucks. But at least your friends should feel more guilty than you about various transgressions. What do your parents feel about your homosexuality?


Be careful what you take as read from Keruvalia. Almost as anti scripture/Christianity as you!


Interesting. I am not 'anti-christianity'.... I just don't believe that:

a) Most people practice true 'christianity', and
b) It is relevant in the lives of non-christians.

Seperation of christians from the worldy world is a central tenet of christianity in scripture... and the insistence of certain 'christians' that they should reshape the world is direct contravention of that tenet.

i find it really odd that people seem to think they must be gay OR straight; you are attracted to men but also fell in love with a woman, so you conclude you must be straight, when the logical conclusion would be that you are simply bisexual. you didn't stop being gay, you simply were bisexual all along and hadn't met a woman who fit with you in the way you were looking for.

i honestly will never understand straight people and gay people; how could you possible ignore half of the attractive people in the world? how can you pass up chances for love based on genitals?

See, this is the way I see it... but I have just never met a man that I found attractive in that way. I have had close friends that were men, and close friends that were women, but the only people I have ever taken that EXTRA interest in have been women.

I am not so much of a bigot that I assume that means I never WILL find a man attractive in that way.

Well, except Johnny Depp. ;)

Interesting. I am not 'anti-christianity'.... I just don't believe that:

a) Most people practice true 'christianity', and
b) It is relevant in the lives of non-christians.

Seperation of christians from the worldy world is a central tenet of christianity in scripture... and the insistence of certain 'christians' that they should reshape the world is direct contravention of that tenet.
You know what I mean :D !! I think you're misunderstanding the worldly world (is there not a better phrase for that? never mind) separation ideal. The idea is that Christians should rise above what the world dictates that they should want and concentrate on God. That reshaping you mention is the process of turning people's views from their selfish desires and focusing on God etc etc. Your a) and b) points are good though I'd still say that it is relevant to N-C's cos Christians believe that N-C's are going to hell. And we'd rather they didn't.

'True' Christianity is tough to sort out and I got rightly canned for dictating what a 'real' Christian should believe at one point. All fun. Just know that Jesus loves you. :D man, that pisses people off!!

GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD!

Seriously I am getting fed up of explaing the same thing to diffrent people, to all the newbs to this thread, go back and read it before you ask anything. I think its fair to say I have been on here the longest and I'm getting fed up of upstart newbs asking questions which have been delt with a long time back.

Fnoridish Infamy, you only have 14 posts in total, never mind on this thread, so come back when you have read it through. And dont give me this "I cant be bothered" nonsense. If you rearly want an answer then you will be willing to find it.

Interesting... so 'post-count' makes you more of an expert?

Well, I guess you have just been pwned... so, you'd probably best be quiet now, right?

Interesting... so 'post-count' makes you more of an expert?

Well, I guess you have just been pwned... so, you'd probably best be quiet now, right?
and the awesome bit is that he post pads by responding in seperate posts rather than posting a longer post. gotta raise those meaningless numbers!

You know what I mean :D !! I think you're misunderstanding the worldly world (is there not a better phrase for that? never mind) separation ideal. The idea is that Christians should rise above what the world dictates that they should want and concentrate on God. That reshaping you mention is the process of turning people's views from their selfish desires and focusing on God etc etc. Your a) and b) points are good though I'd still say that it is relevant to N-C's cos Christians believe that N-C's are going to hell. And we'd rather they didn't.

'True' Christianity is tough to sort out and I got rightly canned for dictating what a 'real' Christian should believe at one point. All fun. Just know that Jesus loves you. :D man, that pisses people off!!

Yes. You believe that ncs are going to hell... but they don't! That's the thing, you see... free will extends to everyone... not just the people in your gang... If I were to try to convert you to Satanism, I'm fairly sure you would resist. If I tried again, I'm sure you would resist again. If I kept trying, you'd get tired of it, and be yelling "LEAVE ME ALONE, I don't want to be one of your goat-sacrificing, virgin-eating horde... (or whatever it is Satanists do...)". Well, the Atheist, or the other non-c has decided that they don't want to be part of the 'dog-collars-and-frocks-in-church' crowd. It doesn't matter if you would rather they changed their minds... they would rather they didn't!

And that's it. We have decided to be part of the worldly world (of the Field), and that is our choice. Christians are supposed to choose to seperate themselves from that.

Christianity is supposed to dwell within a society, and obey it's laws... and where it believes those laws are corrupt, it is supposed to obey god's law.
That isn't what is happeneing here, though - rather than OBEY god's law DESPITE the worldy ones... they are trying to ENFORCE god's law ON the worldy ones.

Because clearly the human species typically asexually reproduces.

The human race does NOT reproduce during menstruation. Sex has to take place before it for a baby to be the result. During the time period, sex during menstruation could lead to a greatly increased incidence of disease because of the exposure to blood and certain pathogenic bacteria. That isn't a problem now because of improved hygience and because of antibiotics (though that won't last much longer).

Anal sex is (as the URL points out) normal sexual practice for gay couples.

Hmmm... how wrong are you, this time?

Let's see:

1) Anal sex is not ONLY for homosexuals... many heterosexuals enjoy the pleasures of anal intercourse.

2) Anal sex is about as common in gay men as it is in straight men... that is, in terms of 'giving' and 'receiving', both statistics are about equivalent to the straight population.

3) Lesbians indulge in far less anal intercourse than gay men or straight men or straight women. Because they don't have one of the required body parts. What some lesbians DO do, is have anal intercourse with 'toys'... which, conventionally lack blood, and so (if kept clean) would provide very POOR transmission vectors for disease.

4) It seems that more gay men indulge in oral sex or masturbation, than in actual anal intercourse - especially in the light of disease... if you want to know why this might be, ask yourself how YOU would feel about being penetrated... then try to figure a reason why being attracted to a different gender might not change that.

Neo, remember that Grave_n_idle's mostly coming from a Separation of Church and State angle. He doesn't follow the Bible and picks various holes in whatever scripture you're going to throw at him, mostly insignificant loopholes and technicalities which Bible writers hadn't thought of at the time. No offense G_n_I.

The fact is that a government which has elected to leave Christian Beliefs behind is under no obligation to follow them, however much they coincide with common sense. I do feel that the US should remove 'In God We Trust' from their banknotes, for this very reason.

However he does like quoting the 'reconcile your own sins before judging others' one wrongly. No human outside the justice system (in an ideal world) should judge another human. Th act he's thinking of is the New Testament endorsed practice of respectfully pointing out people's slip-ups. This is really quite useful. As Ape-president should try realising at some point.

I DID follow the bible, and I pick holes in scripture, because the holes are there... especially in the corrupt translations that people enjoy so much.

Also - Thankyou. According to you, I have now been elevated to a level somewhere above god... which is something I had suspected for some time, but now I have witnesses. "I'm Infullible".

I also believe that America should leave out the "in god we trust", for the quite simple reason that it isn't true. As a nation, the US is mixed... mixed religions, mixed creeds, mixed ideologies. To use one blanket statement, that holds NO significance for a large number of people is an anarchronism, and one better left behind.

Oh, I was actually thinking about Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven".
and:

John 8:7 "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".

Interesting... so 'post-count' makes you more of an expert?


I was saying he has not been on the forum enough to make such sweeping claims. People have to read the rest of the forum before asking something to see if it hasnt been asked before.

Oh, I was actually thinking about Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven".
and:

John 8:7 "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".

I dont judge homosexuals. They are sinners, just like me and everyone else.

Christianity is supposed to dwell within a society, and obey it's laws... and where it believes those laws are corrupt, it is supposed to obey god's law.
That isn't what is happeneing here, though - rather than OBEY god's law DESPITE the worldy ones... they are trying to ENFORCE god's law ON the worldy ones.

And what is wrong with that? If these laws are right in the eyes of God, and Atheists dont believe in God what do they care?

What is that?

http://www.pubmed.org It's pretty much the best website to search for scientific studies.

Ok this is what I believe regarding people being homosexual

Your opinion is great, but without scientific backing, it means nothing to anyone else. Why don't you try doing research outside of "this is how I feel" and "this is what some random church that hates gays said"?

1) There is no such thing as being "born gay". People can be more likely to be gay as a result of some genetic factors and hormonal imbalances but in no way does it MAKE you certian to be gay.

You don't choose your sexual orientation. Period. You are attracted to who you are attracted to - you don't sit down and go "I'm going to be attracted to women today, lalalalala." Attraction to certain people is most likely affected by all sorts of factors, but it is perfectly natural and far from being a choice.

2) The main factor that decides whether someone is gay or not is ENVIROMENTAL factors, not genetic ones. As far as I have seen the proof that homosexuality is genetic is flawed on the basis of the following problems

If by environmental factors, you include hormone balances within the womb, you are probably right. Genetics most likely plays a role as well, but it is the combination of all of these things that determines your sexuality.

A) The rediculous ammount of health risks accioated with it, nothing that you are BORN to be is that damaging to health.

There are no health risks associated with homosexuality, unless you count being attacked by fundamentalists for admitting it. There are a few health risks associated with anal sex - but homosexuality does not necessarily entail anal sex. Besides, the health risks aren't that much greater than for vaginal sex.

B) The idea of a geneitc condition which could then stop said condition from ever being passed on is stupid. It would have died out by now if it started off at the beginging of human history. You can say its "complex" and that "molecular genetics" allow for it, but frankly its just stupid. And to those who say that homosexuality is a mutation designed to deal with an overcrowded planet, how would genes know if the planet is overcrowded?

You haven't studied genetics much, have you? There is evidence that the genetic predisposition for males to be gay may be carried on the X chromosome. In women, this genetic code *increases* fertility. Thus, women would be carriers and pass this on to their sons.

And to say that something is complex is not stupid. Study biology - *everything* is complex.

Well, mostly it's flawed because for something to be genetical, there has to be a gene for it (that's "gene" and not "gen" in English, right?), which there isn't. Human DNA is fully mapped, according to this science magazine I read (Scandinavian Illustrert Vitenskap/Science Illustrated) but no "Gay Gene" has been found.

You are completely wrong. You don't have to have one specific gene for something to be genetic. There is no "skin color gene" either. Combinations of many genetic factors determine your skin color. In addition, how much sun you get can change your melanonin levels, and thus your skin color. It could very well be the same with sexuality. There may be many genetic factors that determine where your sexuality falls on the spectrum, just as there are genetic factors that determine your skin color. Then, in addition, exposure as a child, the way that sexuality is viewed in your life, etc. can also affect it.

Can you read Hebrew?

Okay. Let's take it a step at a time.

(There are people on this forum better than I at this job, but I will suffice).

Leviticus 18:22, commonly read as "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

In Hebrew: Vayikra: "‏וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תֹּועֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃"

(I seem to be having something of a problem getting my interface to recognise all the symbols, but you get the message).

Transliterated: "Shakab Zakar Mishkab 'ishshah Tow'ebah"

Well - the whole area of text is aimed at men... that much is implicit in the text... but, let's go through the Hebrew of 18:22

Shakab = To lie down; to make lie down; to lie down with; or to lie down (for sexual relations).

Zakar = Male (either of human or of animal)... given context, we can assume it means human male.

Mishkab = A couch or bed; the act of lying down; a bed room; or the act of lying down (for sexual relations).

'ishshah = Woman; wife; female animal; or pronouns "each" or "every".

Tow'ebah = A disgusting thing, in a ritual sense... as of unclean foods; or; a disgusting thing in an ethical sense... as in wickedness.

To lie down; Man; in the bed of (or 'for sexual contact with); a woman; is unclean.

So: Traslation gives: "For a man to lie in the bed of a woman is unclean";
OR; "For a man to have sexual contact with a woman is unclean".

Further Note: I have been informed by others, far more adept with Hebrew than I, that the specific phrasing implies a reference to menstruation... which would certainly make more SENSE than just a blanket statement that 'men and women having sex is dirty'.

Did that help?

Untill you can find someone on the NIV translation panel who can disprove this I am not listening. Why would many diffrent versions of the Bible (Not just NIV) say the same thing (Or simmilar things) if its obviously so wrong? Answer, its not wrong and therfore all these experts in Hebrew were right. And its not just here that talks about Homosexuality. And the NRSV (translated directly from the oldest scripture available) says this

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

So dont go telling me its translated wrong

Why would many diffrent versions of the Bible (Not just NIV) say the same thing (Or simmilar things) if its obviously so wrong?

Maybe they're afraid to admit they are wrong? So afraid they don't even realise it anymore.

I was saying he has not been on the forum enough to make such sweeping claims. People have to read the rest of the forum before asking something to see if it hasnt been asked before.

And post score shows what you have read?

No - it only shows what you have posted... and only on THIS forum...

Anyway - does that mean that someone who has been debating in this thread since it started has some kind of superiority over you, in this thread?

Untill you can find someone on the NIV translation panel who can disprove this I am not listening. Why would many diffrent versions of the Bible (Not just NIV) say the same thing (Or simmilar things) if its obviously so wrong? Answer, its not wrong and therfore all these experts in Hebrew were right. And its not just here that talks about Homosexuality. And the NRSV (translated directly from the oldest scripture available) says this

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

So dont go telling me its translated wrong

Choose not to listen. That is fine by me. Ignorance is your option.

Maybe you should learn Hebrew? Then you could read it for yourself, rather than being force-fed by an array of people with their own agenda's to promote.

Did you not look at my translation? I showed you the Hebrew... I showed you a Hebrew transliteration... and I showed you the rough meanings of each word. I then showed you how those words assembled.

How about you prove my argument wrong?

You can't. And, you know why? Because my translation is closer than the version you have allowed yourself to be conditioned to believe.

Ignore it if you like, but you do so at the cost of any argument you may be making... because I have just PROVED the basis of part of your argument false.

You don't choose your sexual orientation. Period. You are attracted to who you are attracted to - you don't sit down and go "I'm going to be attracted to women today, lalalalala." Attraction to certain people is most likely affected by all sorts of factors, but it is perfectly natural and far from being a choice.

If by environmental factors, you include hormone balances within the womb, you are probably right. Genetics most likely plays a role as well, but it is the combination of all of these things that determines your sexuality.


By choice, I mean its primaryly envirmonetal factorst that affect wheter or nor someone is homosexual. Genetic factors may play a part but I am not convinced. For every study that says they do, there is another which says that they dont. Choice here means that you can "Choose" to be in another enviroment and you yourself can influence your enviroment.


There are no health risks associated with homosexuality, unless you count being attacked by fundamentalists for admitting it. There are a few health risks associated with anal sex - but homosexuality does not necessarily entail anal sex. Besides, the health risks aren't that much greater than for vaginal sex.


Ok, here is the URL again

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And if you read it all, it talks about every form of homosexual sex I know of and the psycological damage and explains why its more damaging than hetrosexual sex


You haven't studied genetics much, have you? There is evidence that the genetic predisposition for males to be gay may be carried on the X chromosome. In women, this genetic code *increases* fertility. Thus, women would be carriers and pass this on to their sons.

And to say that something is complex is not stupid. Study biology - *everything* is complex.

You are completely wrong. You don't have to have one specific gene for something to be genetic. There is no "skin color gene" either. Combinations of many genetic factors determine your skin color. In addition, how much sun you get can change your melanonin levels, and thus your skin color. It could very well be the same with sexuality. There may be many genetic factors that determine where your sexuality falls on the spectrum, just as there are genetic factors that determine your skin color. Then, in addition, exposure as a child, the way that sexuality is viewed in your life, etc. can also affect it.

Ok this is how it looks to me

At the begining of human history the human gene pool contained many and various charicteristics. At some point down the line some of these chariteristics came togther and produced a homosexual. Since he/she was no unable to reproduce, the realisation of all these charicteristics mixed togther meant they could not be passed on. There were a few more homosexuals created as a result of some of these charciteristcs but they too no longer reproduced and so the charcheteistics were not passed on. If this continues, you would expect the number of homosexual to go down or to be consistant but small. BUT it is rising, and dont just say to me its because of tollerance and that there was a large number before. So why is it rising? Answer it is a sociological phonominan not a genetic one. In an enviroment where it is accepted and (on occation) supported it thrives.

Have you been through the 'if homosexuality is so terrible why doesn't Jesus say anything about it' debate?

And what is wrong with that? If these laws are right in the eyes of God, and Atheists dont believe in God what do they care?

Insight usually leads to wisdom... but apparently not in this case.

You are right: Atheists and other non-christians DON'T care about your laws. They do not. That much is true.

They DO CARE that the current theocratic regime is trying to ENFORCE those christian 'laws' (that you just noticed, they DON'T believe in) onto everyone, regardless of denomination.

How do you know the incedence of homosexuality is rising?

Ignore it if you like, but you do so at the cost of any argument you may be making... because I have just PROVED the basis of part of your argument false.

Then "why" do Christians translate it like it does? What reason do they have? These people spend years on something like that. How can you think yourself as supiror to them? Ansewr, your not and they are right

Ok, here is the URL again

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And if you read it all, it talks about every form of homosexual sex I know of and the psycological damage and explains why its more damaging than hetrosexual sex



I just went and looked at your link.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but it is unscientific, prejudiced, and rubbish.

Only homosexuals indulge in rimming?

Sadism is a some form of exclusively homosexual sex?

Fewer lesbians than gay men?

Lesbians are at higher risk of STD than straight females?

Let me show you my FAVOURITE part... and you explain how it can be true... ready?

"Lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV disease-homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug-abusing men.

See the problem, yet?

Show a proper source, or remain silent.

Ok, here is the URL again

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And if you read it all, it talks about every form of homosexual sex I know of and the psycological damage and explains why its more damaging than hetrosexual sex

We're discussion homosexuality, not promisquity, anal sex, oral sex, and certainly not firsting, rimming or sadism.

The only only gay population that is increasing is the openly gay people. Which, you're right is a social issue. That doesn't mean more people are becoming gay, just more people are willing to admit that they are. BTW can you provide some kind of reference for this claim?

Then "why" do Christians translate it like it does? What reason do they have? These people spend years on something like that. How can you think yourself as supiror to them? Ansewr, your not and they are right

Why do christians translate it that way?

1) Some of them know no better, I would imagine. They have been told how to translate a section, and they ignore the 'logic' of the passage, in preference of 'accepted' formulae.

2) Why do christians translate other parts of the bible incorrectly? Did you know that god, in the first chapter of Genesis, is plural in Hebrew? They openly acknowledged the existence of multiple gods... which they later recanted with a commandment just for that purpose... which would be unnecessary if they hadn't stated multiple gods to start with.

3) Why do people write anything? People have an agenda. Even the writers of the King James version had an agenda... if they didn't satisfy the king, that would probably be the last text they ever wrote.

4) Why would modern translations continue to marr the original text? How about, because intolerance of sexuality has become a recognised part of christianity, and the translators of 'new versions' cannot bring themselves to release all of their biases when conducting a translation.

I have shown you the breakdown of the Hebrew phrasing.

Why don't you show me how I am wrong?

Then "why" do Christians translate it like it does? What reason do they have? These people spend years on something like that. How can you think yourself as supiror to them? Ansewr, your not and they are right

Because claiming it means something other than the church has said it means for decades puts them in direct conflict with their superiors, who have plenty of ways to silence them. (ie. claims of not being a true Christian, etc. Not assassination)
Few people have the courage to under those circumstances, and those that do would ne discredited.

We're discussion homosexuality, not promisquity, anal sex, oral sex, and certainly not firsting, rimming or sadism.

And those are all things asscoated with homosexuality

It just seems to me that religion is a socially acceptable form of Fascism. You, Neo, are attempting to impose your beliefs on people who are less Narrow Minded.

I have shown you the breakdown of the Hebrew phrasing.

Why don't you show me how I am wrong?

Becaue there are other parts of the new testement which also condemn homosexuality, not that I expect you to listen to that.

It just seems to me that religion is a socially acceptable form of Fascism. You, Neo, are attempting to impose your beliefs on people who are less Narrow Minded.

Im defending my beliefs, not forcing them on anyone.

And those are all things asscoated with homosexuality

Irrelevant. They are neither inherent in homosexuality, nor limited to it.

Edit: Besides, some of the things associated with Christianity are: Abuse of altar-boys, hatred, the Crusades, the Inquisition, millions of AIDS-victims in Africa. How do you feel about that?

And those are all things asscoated with homosexuality

No. All those things are associated with SEXUALITY.

Homosexuality, or otherwise.

To believe that not to be the case is unbelievable ignorance, or willful inability to face facts.

By choice, I mean its primaryly envirmonetal factorst that affect wheter or nor someone is homosexual. Genetic factors may play a part but I am not convinced. For every study that says they do, there is another which says that they dont. Choice here means that you can "Choose" to be in another enviroment and you yourself can influence your enviroment.

In other words, you are unfamiliar with the English language and with science.
Choice involves a conscious decision - thus your argument fails on the basis of you are creating your own word here.

Any environmental factors that influence sexuality occur long before a person has a choice in anything - basically in utero or in early childhood development. Neither fetuses nor young children can choose to change their environment nor have much influence over it.

As for studies in either direction, you can't compare scientific studies to biased data collected for the purpose of disproving something.

Ok, here is the URL again

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And if you read it all, it talks about every form of homosexual sex I know of and the psycological damage and explains why its more damaging than hetrosexual sex

Read it, and it's pretty much full of shit. Find a scientific website, not a religion-based site that uses only the data they want to.

Ok this is how it looks to me

At the begining of human history the human gene pool contained many and various charicteristics. At some point down the line some of these chariteristics came togther and produced a homosexual. Since he/she was no unable to reproduce, the realisation of all these charicteristics mixed togther meant they could not be passed on. There were a few more homosexuals created as a result of some of these charciteristcs but they too no longer reproduced and so the charcheteistics were not passed on. If this continues, you would expect the number of homosexual to go down or to be consistant but small. BUT it is rising, and dont just say to me its because of tollerance and that there was a large number before. So why is it rising? Answer it is a sociological phonominan not a genetic one. In an enviroment where it is accepted and (on occation) supported it thrives.

Again, you show an absolute lack of understanding of genetics. If the genetic predisposition comes from many genetic factors, it would not get "bred out." This is especially true if the same genetic factors in women *increased* their fertility.

You also ignore the fact that many homosexuals still feel the urge to reproduce, and will do so even if it involves doing something they don't enjoy.

You also ignore that homosexuality is not rising. Human beings are most likely all bisexual to a point, as are most higher order mammals, and there is no longer a clear biological imperative to make sure everyone mates.

So what is exclusive to homosexuality?

So what is exclusive to homosexuality?

Attraction to same-sex partners.

Becaue there are other parts of the new testement which also condemn homosexuality, not that I expect you to listen to that.

I listen, and I disagree.

Your arguments for biblical support for your petty hate have been thoroughly dissected on this forum many times... both the errors in the Hebrew translations, and the errors in the Greek translations.

You seem to be unable to grasp the difference between 'knowing you are wrong' and 'not listening'.

As for studies in either direction, you can't compare scientific studies to biased data collected for the purpose of disproving something.

Hark, the sound of genralisation in the hills. How do you know that studies which support the idea of homsexuality as genetic were not done purely "For the purpose of disproving something? Answer you cant. Tell you what, go find me every study that proves homosexuality is not genetic and then refute each one, then perhaps I will listen and take what you just said seriously.

Im defending my beliefs, not forcing them on anyone.

So, you wouldn't vote to ban 'gay marriage', then?

So what is exclusive to homosexuality?
Fashion industry, musical theater, you know the essentials. :p

Hark, the sound of genralisation in the hills. How do you know that studies which support the idea of homsexuality as genetic were not done purely "For the purpose of disproving something? Answer you cant. Tell you what, go find me every study that proves homosexuality is not genetic and then refute each one, then perhaps I will listen and take what you just said seriously.

That's not how debate works, my friend.

You claim backing from a source. Therefore:

You have to provide that source. Then:

If that source is challenged, YOU have to defend that source.

"Well, You can't fly, either!" Isn't an accepted debate response.

Hark, the sound of genralisation in the hills. How do you know that studies which support the idea of homsexuality as genetic were not done purely "For the purpose of disproving something? Answer you cant.

Said the person who keeps parading a site around that claims all homosexuals engage in anal sex, fisting and bloodsports. And only homosexuals off course.
Wasn't there a bit in your precious bible about splinters and logs?

Hark, the sound of genralisation in the hills. How do you know that studies which support the idea of homsexuality as genetic were not done purely "For the purpose of disproving something? Answer you cant. Tell you what, go find me every study that proves homosexuality is not genetic and then refute each one, then perhaps I will listen and take what you just said seriously.
Debate doesn't work this way. You're essentially saying, "Form a cogent argument against your position and then refute it." You have to provide at least one side.

Your arguments for biblical support for your petty hate.

Lets not let this get personal. I have no 'hate' for homosexuals. I believe they are sinners, but I also believe I am a sinner. And so are you and everyone else on this forum. I do not treat homosexuals any diffrently from hetrosexuals, if I meet them and I do not do any of the many things that have been ascribed to Christians as being common practice (Shouting Queer at homosexuals, spitting on their graves etc). Homosexuality is a sin, but guess what, so is steeling, lieing, cheeting, raping, being adulterous etc. And all of these sins can be removed by belief in Chirst, acceptence of what he did and an honest and sincere apology to God that you are a sinner and a promise to try and live life more acroding to how he said.

As for your acuastion, you dont know me, you've (proberbly, I dont know where you live so it could be near me) never met me or seen me. So wait a little while before you ascribe hate to people. Hate is a very strong word.

Debate doesn't work this way. You're essentially saying, "Form a cogent argument against your position and then refute it." You have to provide at least one side.

My point was, he was genralising every study saying homosexuality is not genetic as being wrong and biased, and genralising every study that proves homosexuality is genetic as being scientific and true. You cant do that without proof.

Perhaps, but it seems pretty easy (and hard not to) when you have yet to provide said study.

He was the one to make the genralisation, not me. Ergo he provides the evidence.

Attraction to same-sex partners.

Nope, that's not exclusive to homosexuality either - bisexuality can claim it as well. I guess the only thing exclusive to homosexuality would be a lack of attraction to the opposite sex.


Hark, the sound of genralisation in the hills. How do you know that studies which support the idea of homsexuality as genetic were not done purely "For the purpose of disproving something? Answer you cant. Tell you what, go find me every study that proves homosexuality is not genetic and then refute each one, then perhaps I will listen and take what you just said seriously.

I can't help it if you know nothing about science. However, I can tell you that scientific studies are approached in an entirely different manner. If someone was simply looking for evidence to prove/disprove something, they would be laughed out of credible science. Find something in a credible peer-reviewed scientific journal that clearly proves there is absolutely no genetic component to homosexuality. I have yet to see anything, and I read a lot of peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Nope, that's not exclusive to homosexuality either - bisexuality can claim it as well. I guess the only thing exclusive to homosexuality would be a lack of attraction to the opposite sex.

I knew that, I just wanted to keep things simple. But you're right, your definition is better.
Thanks for pointing it out.

Edit: Off course, your definition also covers asexuals, so maybe 'only attracted to the same sex' is even better.

He was the one to make the genralisation, not me. Ergo he provides the evidence.
YOU made the claim that these studies existed and are unbiased and scietifically valid, therefore YOU find them.

I can't help it if you know nothing about science. However, I can tell you that scientific studies are approached in an entirely different manner. If someone was simply looking for evidence to prove/disprove something, they would be laughed out of credible science. Find something in a credible peer-reviewed scientific journal that clearly proves there is absolutely no genetic component to homosexuality. I have yet to see anything, and I read a lot of peer-reviewed scientific journals.

I have stated repeadtedly, whilst I agree that there are some genetic factors that determine homosexuality, the vastly supieror determining factor would seem to be enviromental.

A) Becuase of the continuing rise in the numbers of homosexuals in western countries which have low birth rates (so it cant be increasing as the populatation increases) where homosexuality is more tolerated and accepted and is rising out of proportion with the population.

B) Because of the rise of homosexuality in China, a country with a vastly lopsided male/female population ratio in favour of men.

C) Because of the homsexual relationships found commonly in single sex secondary schools and very rarely in multi sex schools.

Ergo, in situations where there is either lots of acceptence or support for homosexuals or where there is a large presence of a single sex then in these situations, homosexuality can be found to be on the rise, a rise out of proportion with its population.

Yawn. Don't you people have anything better to do than read scientific papers. If not, read some of the ones I'm supposed to read and give me summaries. Cheers

A) Becuase of the continuing rise in the numbers of homosexuals in western countries which have low birth rates (so it cant be increasing as the populatation increases) where homosexuality is more tolerated and accepted and is rising out of proportion with the population.

So are you saying that homosexuality is the cause of decreasing birthrates?

C) Because of the homsexual relationships found commonly in single sex secondary schools and very rarely in multi sex schools.

Kinda hard to have heterosexual relationships on a same-sex school isn't it? So obviously there are more of them.

Ergo, in situations where there is either lots of acceptence or support for homosexuals or where there is a large presence of a single sex then in these situations, homosexuality can be found to be on the rise, a rise out of proportion with its population.

Just like the numbers of Christians rose after it became accepted/supported?

Lets not let this get personal. I have no 'hate' for homosexuals. I believe they are sinners, but I also believe I am a sinner. And so are you and everyone else on this forum. I do not treat homosexuals any diffrently from hetrosexuals, if I meet them and I do not do any of the many things that have been ascribed to Christians as being common practice (Shouting Queer at homosexuals, spitting on their graves etc). Homosexuality is a sin, but guess what, so is steeling, lieing, cheeting, raping, being adulterous etc. And all of these sins can be removed by belief in Chirst, acceptence of what he did and an honest and sincere apology to God that you are a sinner and a promise to try and live life more acroding to how he said.

As for your acuastion, you dont know me, you've (proberbly, I dont know where you live so it could be near me) never met me or seen me. So wait a little while before you ascribe hate to people. Hate is a very strong word.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps hate is too strong a word.

But, within just the last few pages, you have made all kinds of insupportable claims about homosexuality as harbinger of disease, and the terrible price in psychological damage, etc...

And, those claims have been 'verified' by religious anti-gay platforms... that lacked scientific integrity, that mixed facts up as if they were related, that presented unrelated facts as though they were part of the same evidence, and that made ridiculous claims... if you are not forwarding a 'hate' agenda, you are walking dangerously close...

Imagine a scenario where someone implied that all christians sexually assaulted babies? It is a ridiculous claim, no? But, what image does that give you ABOUT the person that made that claim?

What about if a third person used THAT claim to reinforce an argument they were having? What image would that leave?

Perhaps you didn't realise what you were implying. Perhaps you didn't seriously think about what your 'evidence' was saying about you...

I think I was wrong... i think 'hate' is too strong a word... but what else is an unreasoned and unreasoning 'attack'?

Prejudice?

Ok, here is the URL again

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And if you read it all, it talks about every form of homosexual sex I know of and the psycological damage and explains why its more damaging than hetrosexual sex

[/QUOTE]

As a general rule, if something appears on a religious website, its not unbiased.



Ok this is how it looks to me

At the begining of human history the human gene pool contained many and various charicteristics. At some point down the line some of these chariteristics came togther and produced a homosexual. Since he/she was no unable to reproduce, the realisation of all these charicteristics mixed togther meant they could not be passed on. There were a few more homosexuals created as a result of some of these charciteristcs but they too no longer reproduced and so the charcheteistics were not passed on. If this continues, you would expect the number of homosexual to go down or to be consistant but small. BUT it is rising, and dont just say to me its because of tollerance and that there was a large number before. So why is it rising? Answer it is a sociological phonominan not a genetic one. In an enviroment where it is accepted and (on occation) supported it thrives.

Incorrect. Homosexuality would continue to occur as long as those "characteristics" still occurred. Since having those "characteristics" does not select again your reproduction, unless you are gay, they will remain in the population and therefore homosexuality will continue. Further if those "characteristics" function to INCREASE the fitness of heterosexuals, they will occur at hirer and hirer percentages cause homosexuality to be more and more common.

Stick to the Bible and don't argue things you don't understnad.

C) Because of the homsexual relationships found commonly in single sex secondary schools and very rarely in multi sex schools.

There's alot of gay sex in prisons too, that doesn't mean those guys are homosexuals. Its a matter of sexual release, no one of the opposite sex is available and so they do what they can.

And what are these health risks?GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD!I take it you're going to continue to ignore all evidence that your so-called health risks are nonsense?
Why? At least support your points. I've already supported mine prevoiouly with URL's.
AS DID I. Here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7353879#post7353879). Which I reminded you of here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7358788#post7358788). You still ignore those posts. Hence my comment.

Yes I am citing an article in a scientific journal I've never heard of before. But I did find it on the nih website. Perhaps you can find a more credible source. I've tried, but the various health organizations seem disinclined to discuss anal sex.

Here is a link discussing the study of one Dr Robert Spitzer who looked into the idea that Gays can 'go straight' and that 200 in this study did

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160065/posts

And those are all things asscoated with homosexuality

And with heterosexuality. None of them are exclusively homosexual in nature.

I have stated repeadtedly, whilst I agree that there are some genetic factors that determine homosexuality, the vastly supieror determining factor would seem to be enviromental.

A) Becuase of the continuing rise in the numbers of homosexuals in western countries which have low birth rates (so it cant be increasing as the populatation increases) where homosexuality is more tolerated and accepted and is rising out of proportion with the population.

B) Because of the rise of homosexuality in China, a country with a vastly lopsided male/female population ratio in favour of men.

C) Because of the homsexual relationships found commonly in single sex secondary schools and very rarely in multi sex schools.

Ergo, in situations where there is either lots of acceptence or support for homosexuals or where there is a large presence of a single sex then in these situations, homosexuality can be found to be on the rise, a rise out of proportion with its population.

Having never been to China, I can't really validate your claim... but it does seem likely that more men are ADMITTING to being gay, since the slight relaxation of human right 'problems' in that area. It seems unlikely that there is a greater incidence of homosexuality, per se.

Perhaps what is being reported is actually an increase in non-consensual intercourse... what, I believe, is sometimes called 'prison sex'.

The single-sex school story is rubbish, I'm afraid.

I attended a single sex school for 5 years, and can think of only 2 homosexuals I knew there, from a population of 400. I also attended a 'mixed' school, of about 1500 people (for about 2 years) which had dozens of 'gay' couples, male and female. I also knew of several more bisexuals at the mixed school.

Yes. You believe that ncs are going to hell... but they don't! If I were to try to convert you to Satanism, I'm fairly sure you would resist. If I tried again, I'm sure you would resist again. If I kept trying, you'd get tired of it, and be yelling "LEAVE ME ALONE, I don't want to be one of your goat-sacrificing, virgin-eating horde... (or whatever it is Satanists do...)". Well, the Atheist, or the other non-c has decided that they don't want to be part of the 'dog-collars-and-frocks-in-church' crowd. It doesn't matter if you would rather they changed their minds... they would rather they didn't!
Memo: if I ever wear a dog-collar (that actually happened but it was for a play so it doesn't count) or a frock (biblical sense, let's not go down the transvestite route) you have my permission to shoot me.

Again know what you're saying but the idea is that Christians put their message out there for people to take notice of. Part of that is to say "oops, you slipped up there". That can have two effects: the 'really why do you say that' path, and the 'WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO? I'LL LIVE MY LIFE THE WAY I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH! THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH EATING VIRGINS!' path. Maybe not quite that strong. But hey, extreme examples work.

My feeling is that if you asked the average white (or black, but probably not Asian) person in an English street what religion they were, they'd probably say something along the lines of, 'I dunno, Christian I suppose'. They wouldn't have any real idea of what Christianity was about. As wouldn't half the American 'christians' living in Texas :D

We have decided to be part of the worldly world (of the Field), and that is our choice. Christians are supposed to choose to seperate themselves from that.

Christianity is supposed to dwell within a society, and obey it's laws... and where it believes those laws are corrupt, it is supposed to obey god's law.
That isn't what is happeneing here, though - rather than OBEY god's law DESPITE the worldy ones... they are trying to ENFORCE god's law ON the worldy ones.
Aye, but think of the wordly world/field/Western World as the Matrix. And the Pope is Morpheus. Ok.. leave the last bit.. But the Christians see themselves as the people in Zion (should have been called Eden I reckon) pulling people out of the Matrix. They're just not as selective as Morpheus and co.

Also - Thankyou. According to you, I have now been elevated to a level somewhere above god... which is something I had suspected for some time, but now I have witnesses. "I'm Infullible".
Now you see, you're just disproving your atheism. The Lord has seen fit to bring RED DWARF to the US. Proof enough for anyone that God exists!!

Oh, I was actually thinking about Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven".
and:

John 8:7 "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".
Yes I know you were thinking of those (among others). The 'forgive' bit's all you need from that 1st ref. if you're a Christian.

The people who brought the prostitute before Jesus were being pretty blatant in their attempts to:
a) challenge him and God's law (there were pharisees among the group)
b) suck up to him.
His answers shut the pharisees up, which was always a good thing to do at the time, and caused the others to think. The sychophants were trying to show him zealous they were. They'd just missed the point where the law says that the judges of the land are to judge people and no one else should.

Here is a link discussing the study of one Dr Robert Spitzer who looked into the idea that Gays can 'go straight' and that 200 in this study did

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160065/posts
That study has LONG been discredited. The 200 people involved were referred by NARTH, a conservative fundementalist ex gay organization. They are not good subjects for study as the pressure of social stigma and reprecussions of them staying gay would influence the study's result. Or something like that, I'm not sure I explained that right.

Also don't cite Free Republic as an unbiased source, and I won't cite the Human Rights Campaign.

Here is a link discussing the study of one Dr Robert Spitzer who looked into the idea that Gays can 'go straight' and that 200 in this study did

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160065/posts

You realise, of course, that what you posted is a forum... much like this one?

The person didn't cite THEIR source, either...

So, if I can find someone on THIS forum that says you are wrong, I can post that as 'evidence'?

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps hate is too strong a word.

But, within just the last few pages, you have made all kinds of insupportable claims about homosexuality as harbinger of disease, and the terrible price in psychological damage, etc...

And, those claims have been 'verified' by religious anti-gay platforms... that lacked scientific integrity, that mixed facts up as if they were related, that presented unrelated facts as though they were part of the same evidence, and that made ridiculous claims... if you are not forwarding a 'hate' agenda, you are walking dangerously close...

Imagine a scenario where someone implied that all christians sexually assaulted babies? It is a ridiculous claim, no? But, what image does that give you ABOUT the person that made that claim?

What about if a third person used THAT claim to reinforce an argument they were having? What image would that leave?

Perhaps you didn't realise what you were implying. Perhaps you didn't seriously think about what your 'evidence' was saying about you...

I think I was wrong... i think 'hate' is too strong a word... but what else is an unreasoned and unreasoning 'attack'?

Prejudice?

Its not an unreasoned attack. It has biblical and scientific backing. What about the studies involving gay twins. In cases where one identical twin is gay, only 55% of the time is the other twin found to be gay. There is a flaw in that, if it was genetic you would expect to see a total number.

And those are all things asscoated with homosexuality
One second. I must just point out the fact that Neo Cannen used the word 'asscoated'. I'm sorry, I just found it highly amusing

You realise, of course, that what you posted is a forum... much like this one?

The person didn't cite THEIR source, either...

So, if I can find someone on THIS forum that says you are wrong, I can post that as 'evidence'?

Check the top of the forum, it is a study done by a respected American scientist.

That study has LONG been discredited. The 200 people involved were referred by NARTH, a conservative fundementalist ex gay organization. They are not good subjects for study as the pressure of social stigma and reprecussions of them staying gay would influence the study's result. Or something like that, I'm not sure I explained that right.

Also don't cite Free Republic as an unbiased source, and I won't cite the Human Rights Campaign.

Fine, I have provided a study and you are discrediting it how? Please cite sources for said discreidtiation.

Yawn. Don't you people have anything better to do than read scientific papers. If not, read some of the ones I'm supposed to read and give me summaries. Cheers

We have read them. We have summarized them - in every argument made here. You have ignored it and kept spouting "Well, this is what I think the Bible says!"

Memo: if I ever wear a dog-collar (that actually happened but it was for a play so it doesn't count) or a frock (biblical sense, let's not go down the transvestite route) you have my permission to shoot me.

Again know what you're saying but the idea is that Christians put their message out there for people to take notice of. Part of that is to say "oops, you slipped up there". That can have two effects: the 'really why do you say that' path, and the 'WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO? I'LL LIVE MY LIFE THE WAY I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH! THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH EATING VIRGINS!' path. Maybe not quite that strong. But hey, extreme examples work.

My feeling is that if you asked the average white (or black, but probably not Asian) person in an English street what religion they were, they'd probably say something along the lines of, 'I dunno, Christian I suppose'. They wouldn't have any real idea of what Christianity was about. As wouldn't half the American 'christians' living in Texas :D


Aye, but think of the wordly world/field/Western World as the Matrix. And the Pope is Morpheus. Ok.. leave the last bit.. But the Christians see themselves as the people in Zion (should have been called Eden I reckon) pulling people out of the Matrix. They're just not as selective as Morpheus and co.

The problem with the 'christian, I suppose' response, is that most people have been inundated with talk of 'god' and 'bible' by it's preponderance in western society, that they are incapable of making that decision, or even conceptualising that idea, for themselves.

It has become a default setting, because we live in largely 'christian' areas... reinforced by hollywood (which ALSO does cater to the non-c market, but in far less detail... especially non-c of DIFFERENT religions...) Example: M. Night Shyamalan's "Signs", perfectly good sci-fi movie, with a bodged-on 'keep the christians happy' pseudo-religious ending, that satisfied neither the spiritual, nor the sceptic... and, in my opinion, ruined the whole "make your own decision on faith" message that the film was portraying....

erm... digressed?

Also - depends on the street. For example, stop the average white or black guy on Melton Road, in Leicester, you might be surprised at the variety of responses you get!

The problem with the "oops, you slipped up there" concept, is that we no longer live in biblical times... and our societies are becoming increasingly aware of ideas of social responsibility, and rights to privacy... evangelism is an anachronism... and, altruistic though the motivation may be... it is becoming an increasingly unacceptable pattern of behaviour.

I have stated repeadtedly, whilst I agree that there are some genetic factors that determine homosexuality, the vastly supieror determining factor would seem to be enviromental.

A) Becuase of the continuing rise in the numbers of homosexuals in western countries which have low birth rates (so it cant be increasing as the populatation increases) where homosexuality is more tolerated and accepted and is rising out of proportion with the population.

Again, there are only increasing numbers of *exclusive* homosexuals, not human beings who are attracted to the same gender. Attraction has nothing to do with acceptance.

B) Because of the rise of homosexuality in China, a country with a vastly lopsided male/female population ratio in favour of men.

So more men means more gay men too? Wow! Who woulda thunk it! I bet more men means more short men too. And more black-haried men. And more brown-eyed men. And more men who like the taste of oranges.

C) Because of the homsexual relationships found commonly in single sex secondary schools and very rarely in multi sex schools.

You're pretty naive, aren't you? There are plenty of homosexual relationships at mult-sex schools. However, one is not likely to reveal their relationship to a bigot.

And any environmental factors that make you gay, straight, or bi occur in early childhood - well before secondary school attendance.

Ergo, in situations where there is either lots of acceptence or support for homosexuals or where there is a large presence of a single sex then in these situations, homosexuality can be found to be on the rise, a rise out of proportion with its population.

Wrong. Homosexual *acts* may be performed more often in situations where there are acceptance or support. However, homosexuality will occur in the same proportion.

For those who dicredited my original study, here is another one

http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf

Are straight people born straight?

Its not an unreasoned attack. It has biblical and scientific backing. What about the studies involving gay twins. In cases where one identical twin is gay, only 55% of the time is the other twin found to be gay. There is a flaw in that, if it was genetic you would expect to see a total number.

I never mentioned the reliability of genetic cause.

I was talking about the site you posted that talked about lesbians having promiscuous sex with more men than straight women (there IS a flaw in that logic, you understand)... and that implies that 'homosexuality' spreads 'disease', and backs the claim up with unrelated trivia, partly connected imagination, and straight-out untruth.

That makes it unreasoned, in any serious, scientific capacity.

Here is a link discussing the study of one Dr Robert Spitzer who looked into the idea that Gays can 'go straight' and that 200 in this study did

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160065/posts

Brainwashing of people who were most likely actually bisexuals. Ok, fine - doesn't prove that true homosexuals with no attraction to the opposite sex can change their orientation.

We have read them. We have summarized them - in every argument made here. You have ignored it and kept spouting "Well, this is what I think the Bible says!"
Well I skim read half a dozen papers and caught little bits of info. You've read my two line post and completely misunderstood it!!! Nice one.

I said 'can you read some of the papers I'm supposed to read', on Operating Systems, Artificial Intelligence, that kind of thing. Boring tripe that I find very hard to wade through.

I don't spout either. Unless after the odd pint. Or six.

Also - depends on the street. For example, stop the average white or black guy on Melton Road, in Leicester, you might be surprised at the variety of responses you get!
Yeah one in ten would probably say Jedi!!

The problem with the "oops, you slipped up there" concept, is that we no longer live in biblical times... and our societies are becoming increasingly aware of ideas of social responsibility, and rights to privacy... evangelism is an anachronism... and, altruistic though the motivation may be... it is becoming an increasingly unacceptable pattern of behaviour.
That's where the worldly thing kicks in. Define social responsability and the rest and you'll find the good ideas are endorsed in the Bible and the bad ideas are mostly warned against.

Check the top of the forum, it is a study done by a respected American scientist.

Verify it. The top of the forum SAID the test was run, allegedly by a certain individual, but there was no link... there wasn't even an old fashioned bibliographic reference to tell you what journal it might have been published in... which year... which date... etc.

Not even an abstract of the article.

Its not an unreasoned attack. It has biblical and scientific backing. What about the studies involving gay twins. In cases where one identical twin is gay, only 55% of the time is the other twin found to be gay. There is a flaw in that, if it was genetic you would expect to see a total number.

You would only expect a total number if it was *totally* genetic.

Meanwhile, the percentage of homosexuals in the total population is something between 7 and 10 percent. If genetics were not involved at all, you would expect only between 7 and 10 percent of twins with one homosexual to both be homosexual.

Brainwashing of people who were most likely actually bisexuals. Ok, fine - doesn't prove that true homosexuals with no attraction to the opposite sex can change their orientation.

Provide some proof for this claim

Provide some proof for this claim

Wait? I have to provide proof that the study you linked to doesn't prove anything? Read it - it doesn't prove anything. Not to mention that the article you linked to doesn't say that homosexual attractions were completely wiped out in all of these men, simply that they were diminished.

You cannot choose who you are attracted to, but you can choose to focus on the bad things enough to diminish your attraction. I may initially be attracted to someone, but focus on their ... I don't know ... maybe their habit of chewing on their lips or something to the point where they stop being as attractive. However, I didn't choose to be attracted to that person in the first place.

As for my claim that they were most likely bisexual. Most human beings are most likely bisexual, to a certain degree. My evidence is that fact that all of our closest genetic neighboors, in fact, pretty much all higher order mammals exhibit pretty high degrees of bisexuality.

Meanwhile, the percentage of homosexuals in the total population is something between 7 and 10 percent. If genetics were not involved at all, you would expect only between 7 and 10 percent of twins with one homosexual to both be homosexual.

So the fact that it is 55% suggests the following

A) People are not "Born Gay"
B) Both enviromental and genetic factors play a part, the latter providing the greater responsoblility as in the case of twins they are brought up together as well as having the same genes

For those who dicredited my original study, here is another one

http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf

Where shall I start?

1) Biased source: It is a paper from the "Concerned Women for America" - an activist Christian association, who openly state opposition to homosexual union in their mandate: "CWA believes the traditional family consists of one man and one woman joined in marriage, along with any children they may have. We seek to protect traditional values that support the Biblical design of the family."

2) In mentioning Spitzer, the article goes on to say: "Because no single study can be regarded as definitive, more research on people who have
overcome homosexuality needs to be done."

3) The original article to which THIS article refers only ever suggested that "SOME men" might be able to 'change' their orientation: "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?"

4) Part of the evidence presented, by Dr Rahman, contradicts the whole point of the article, and is 'rebutted' with a hollow, shallow, and meaningless 'rebuttal': "To conclude, it is important to illustrate that neurobiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals are by no means decisive. Nonetheless, the several independent findings of neuroanatomical differences in sex-atypical directions are not easily refutable.{Editor’s note: Yes, they are. Byne and Parsons, among others, saw to
that.}

5) The conclusion of that article admitted that it was difficult to determine for sure, whether there was a genetic link - but fell far short of disproving it: "Determining whether something has a biological cause is difficult, and locating a specifically genetic link is even more so".

6) Finally, also in the conclusion of the article... one of the quotes used directly argues against Spitzer, in exactly the same fashion as it was intended to argue against Rahman, et al. There is no way to PROVE that homosexuality is OR isn't genetic, just by correlative evidence. "As Dr. Satinover emphasizes, correlation does not mean something is causative".

There. That should do, for now.

Next ultimately flawed offering?

Great. Two Christians arguing. I blame Bush

So the fact that it is 55% suggests the following

A) People are not "Born Gay"
B) Both enviromental and genetic factors play a part, the latter providing the greater responsoblility as in the case of twins they are brought up together as well as having the same genes

Actually, the studies often involved twins who were *not* brought up together. Thus, anything more than 10% demonstrates a significant genetic factor.

Basically, we know that genetics, hormone balances, and early childhood environment are all likely to play a part. Of course, all of those things still mean that sexuality is not a choice - therefore, the idiots campaigning against it should shut up.

The color of my hair contains both genetic and environmental compoents, but I certainly didn't choose the color of my hair.

What kind of twins are we dealing with here? Just identical twins? Non-identical twins? Mother identical father non-identical twins?

Also, 55% is quite high. If 7-10% of ppl are gay, would you not expect 7-10% of twins with a gay twin to be gay? It may be statistically significant.

Homosexuality isn't a sin...jeez, it just two dudes or lasses having a bit of fun? What's wrong with sex? That's all it is...just two people bumping and grinding...getting all hot and sweaty....I think I need a lie down :fluffle:

Where shall I start?

1) Biased source: It is a paper from the "Concerned Women for America" - an activist Christian association, who openly state opposition to homosexual union in their mandate:


So what, if they find scientific evidence that backs their idea then good for them.


4) Part of the evidence presented, by Dr Rahman, contradicts the whole point of the article, and is 'rebutted' with a hollow, shallow, and meaningless 'rebuttal'


I read that quote, it seems fine to me. What you have to do now is go find those people's study (Byne and Parsons) and refute them before you refute the editor.


5) The conclusion of that article admitted that it was difficult to determine for sure, whether there was a genetic link - but fell far short of disproving it


But it didnt prove it either. No one here has provided me with any evidence that it is genetic, how come I have to do all the providing?

Fine, I have provided a study and you are discrediting it how? Please cite sources for said discreidtiation.
Ok fine, these are what I found after a minute of searching, not perfect but they raise enough valid points, including quotes by Spitzer himself your article so nicely leaves out.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm
http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/varnell/varnell65.html
http://cobrand.salon.com/news/wire/2000/05/18/shrinks/

And one journal of psychology for good measure:
http://www.haworthpress.com/store/Toc_views.asp?TOCName=J236v07n03_TOC&desc=Volume%3A%207%20Issue%3A%203

Also you COMPLETELY missed the point of that twin study. It studied unrelated (step) siblings, related siblings, fraternal, and identical twins. It showed that unrelated siblings were no more likely to be gay than the rest of the population, related siblings more so, and fraternal twins even more so. That fact that identical twins had such a high incidence shows there is a genetic COMPONENT. These twins were raised apart, and they still had a very high correlation. No one suggests being gay in only genetic or only environmental, but they have shown relatively conclusively that there is a extremly strong genetic component.

One could hardly call being gay a sin, just a personality complex.

So what, if they find scientific evidence that backs their idea then good for them.'

Wow, you have no idea of how science works. Go back to the Dark Ages - they would like you there.

But it didnt prove it either. No one here has provided me with any evidence that it is genetic, how come I have to do all the providing?

Because you are the one trying to make a hard-and-fast point, while we are only claiming what can be shown: that there are most likely many influences on sexuality, the very least of which has anythiing even remotely to do with choice.

What kind of twins are we dealing with here? Just identical twins? Non-identical twins? Mother identical father non-identical twins?

Also, 55% is quite high. If 7-10% of ppl are gay, would you not expect 7-10% of twins with a gay twin to be gay? It may be statistically significant.

Identical twins. And the fact that it is not 100% PROVES beyond reasonable doubt that people are not "born gay" and that homosexauality is also enviromental. Many sins have enviromental liklyhoods attached to them, eg you are more likely to become a thief if you are homeless. There are many sins which have genetic predispostions, the point is that they can be overcome. Sin is not binding.

Wow, you have no idea of how science works. Go back to the Dark Ages - they would like you there.


So if a Christian found irrifuteable proof that homosexuality was not genetic, you would ignore it because he is a christian? Whos being prejudiced here?

Why is homosexuality a sin? Well, it says so in the Bible.

Why should we rely on the Bible as our source of moral values? Well, it was written by God.

Who says it was written by God? Well, it says so in the Bible...

Fan-fuckin'-tastic. Good thing not everyone in the world is a Christain, neh?

Identical twins. And the fact that it is not 100% PROVES beyond reasonable doubt that people are not "born gay" and that homosexauality is also enviromental. Many sins have enviromental liklyhoods attached to them, eg you are more likely to become a thief if you are homeless. There are many sins which have genetic predispostions, the point is that they can be overcome. Sin is not binding.


Uhm... that's not really how statistical significance works.

Uhm... that's not really how statistical significance works.

Well then how does it work. Common debating practice states that you cannot just say "Your wrong" and give no reason. You must explain both why I am wrong and the reasons why you are right.

If homosexuality is a choice, why does it need to be cured?

Since when was being homeless genetic? What sins?

So what, if they find scientific evidence that backs their idea then good for them.


No. It is a partisan source, which means you have to at least question every piece of evidence they claim.

Further, their 'evidence' is not capable of standing up to the rigours required to make it 'scientific', and it fails to prove a conclusion either way, so it doesn't 'back the up', either.


I read that quote, it seems fine to me. What you have to do now is go find those people's study (Byne and Parsons) and refute them before you refute the editor.


The quote seems fine to you? The article just says "Editor’s note: Yes, they are. Byne and Parsons, among others, saw to that", and you consider that to be evidence?

That says much for your debating credentials, I'm afraid.


But it didnt prove it either. No one here has provided me with any evidence that it is genetic, how come I have to do all the providing?

Because you made the claim that it WAS NOT genetic, to start with. You brought up the topic, you have to prove your claim.

Also - I notice you avoided all the other issues I raised... like the fact that it only said that SOME men, MIGHT be 'cured'.

Its not an unreasoned attack. It has biblical and scientific backing. What about the studies involving gay twins. In cases where one identical twin is gay, only 55% of the time is the other twin found to be gay. There is a flaw in that, if it was genetic you would expect to see a total number.

You have provided no unflawed scientific research while you on the otherhand have been unable to present flaws in any of the research we have presented. And no, if was genetic you owuld not expect an absolute total. You don't see that in Juvenille Diabetes which has been proven to have a highly genetic component. In fact, the fact that 55% of identical twins raised separately are both gay is HIGHLY suggestive that there is a genetic component. If it was completely non-genetic, you would only see about 1% of identical twins both being gay (assuming that 10% of the general population is gay). I might be wrong with the statistic, but I know I am right about the suggestion of a genetic linkage.

Again, I highly enourage you to not try and discuss genetics as it is obvious that you are not trained in it and do not understand the science.

So the fact that it is 55% suggests the following

A) People are not "Born Gay"
B) Both enviromental and genetic factors play a part, the latter providing the greater responsoblility as in the case of twins they are brought up together as well as having the same genes


Flawed reasoning:
Have you ever seen identical twins? I have and I can tell you, they are NOT identical... (even not physically, so please leave out the environmental crap). Genetics is not like math, it is not exact. I don't know the proper English term for it, but given the same genes, more than one possible evolution into a human being is possible, as some genes have a chance for e.g. 70% to dominate the other gene of a gene pair.
When one sees that the percentage is 55% instead of the expected 7-10% under 'not genetically defined' hypothesis, there must be a genetic factor that comes with it.
(cfr other posts: this higher percentage has also been found in tests where twins were raised seperately).
So, I still don't see why people cannot be born gay...

And personally, I question the enviromental factors that made me gay, as I can't see any... But this is personal and not scientific...

If homosexuality is a choice, why does it need to be cured?

Because its a sin and sometimes people need help from others to stop sinning

So if a Christian found irrifuteable proof that homosexuality was not genetic, you would ignore it because he is a christian? Whos being prejudiced here?
If a person representing a Christian organization found proof, then yes. A scientist who is also a Christian? No. Anyone who publishes a scientific peer reviewed study in a reputable journal of medicine is taken seriously regardless of their religion.

Why is homosexuality a sin? Well, it says so in the Bible.

Why should we rely on the Bible as our source of moral values? Well, it was written by God.

Who says it was written by God? Well, it says so in the Bible...

Fan-fuckin'-tastic. Good thing not everyone in the world is a Christain, neh?
Damn straight. Someone has to run the US.

So all your other books. They have the author's name on them right? Yet you don't require hard, chronological evidence that they actually wrote it. Most of the time, they did write the books. In other cases, such as David Beckham's various autobiographies, it's a complete lie. I happen to know that David's reading experience does not yet surpass 'Spot in the Garden'.

I realise that's a trifle simplistic but the point is there. Christian belief can only be proved, by means of evidence, in a self-referential manner.

So if a Christian found irrifuteable proof that homosexuality was not genetic, you would ignore it because he is a christian? Whos being prejudiced here?

No, I have no problem with religion. I am both a Christian and a scientist and I know how this works. But if a person claimed to have found irrefutable proof but didn't go about it by the scientific method, I would laugh at them.

Science is not stating an opinion and then searching for evidence to prove it, while ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Science is looking at all the available evidence and coming to the most likely conclusion. For you to say "well, they found scientific evidence to back up their claims" is to prove that they weren't even trying to be scientific - they were just trying to back up a previous bias.

Well then how does it work. Common debating practice states that you cannot just say "Your wrong" and give no reason. You must explain both why I am wrong and the reasons why you are right.

You are wrong because:

Science does not require a 100% correlation in material for the correlation to be significant. A correlation of 45% OVER the expected is highly likely to be statistically significant.

Because its a sin and sometimes people need help from others to stop sinning

But it's a choice. How can you cure a choice?
Sure, you can change someone's mind, but not cure them of an opinion/choice.
To cure someone, they need to suffer some illness. Are you suggesting people choose to be ill? Can I choose to have a flu tomorrow?

homosexuality is sinnful, because back then, when they invented sin, homosexuality posed a threat to the whole survival of the clan/ family group etc. if men had sex with each other rather than women then very quickly that would lead to extinction. Therefore the lead ers of the time decieded to make homosexuality a sin in order to assure the continuity of their clan. the question is, is it still a sin nowadays to be gay? Is acceptable it to waste part of the human reproductive potential?

(i am strait, but open minded)

Herr Kommissar

For those who dicredited my original study, here is another one

http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf

Another easy one to discredit. I will admit I just scanned it but the following things make it easy:

1. No scientific credentials given by the author.
2. No peer-reviewed journal published it.
3. Concerned Women of America? That's a political activist group. We haven't given you anything from Log Cabin Republicans or PFFLAG but have instead opted for actual scientific studies.

Try a search on PubMed instead of on google next time.

You are wrong because:

Science does not require a 100% correlation in material for the correlation to be significant. A correlation of 45% OVER the expected is highly likely to be statistically significant.

Yes exactly, a correlation of 55% in a study of homosexuality? It doesn't just shed some light on the issue, thats like a frickin spotlight.

So all your other books. They have the author's name on them right? Yet you don't require hard, chronological evidence that they actually wrote it.

Geee, maybe that's because they don't claim to be the Word of God?

the question is, is it still a sin nowadays to be gay? Is acceptable it to waste part of the human reproductive potential?


There are heaps too many people. We need MORE gays!!

Identical twins. And the fact that it is not 100% PROVES beyond reasonable doubt that people are not "born gay" and that homosexauality is also enviromental. Many sins have enviromental liklyhoods attached to them, eg you are more likely to become a thief if you are homeless. There are many sins which have genetic predispostions, the point is that they can be overcome. Sin is not binding.

No, it really doesn't. Much of the evidence leans towards the idea that sexuality is largely determined by hormone balances in the womb. Even identical twins wouldn't receive the exact same hormones, as they would be placed differently within the womb.

Another issue would come in with the fact that, even in identical twins, the same chromosomes might not be used. You have two copies of every chromosome - one from each parent. In the case of many genes, the gene on one chromosome is essentially "turned off" and the gene from the other one is used. This is especially true in females, in which an entire X chromosome may be essentially "turned off." There is absolutely no reason to believe that identical twins would be sure to have the same versions of genes "turned off."

Flawed reasoning:
Have you ever seen identical twins? I have and I can tell you, they are NOT identical... (even not physically, so please leave out the environmental crap). Genetics is not like math, it is not exact. I don't know the proper English term for it, but given the same genes, more than one possible evolution into a human being is possible, as some genes have a chance for e.g. 70% to dominate the other gene of a gene pair.
When one sees that the percentage is 55% instead of the expected 7-10% under 'not genetically defined' hypothesis, there must be a genetic factor that comes with it.
(cfr other posts: this higher percentage has also been found in tests where twins were raised seperately).
So, I still don't see why people cannot be born gay...


I shall spell this out shall I?

1) Identical twins have identical DNA because there zygote split in two.
2) If one of said twins becomes gay then if homosexuality is "Completely" genetic and people are born that way, you would expect them both to become gay
3) However this does not happen. You only see 55%. Ergo it is not completley geneticly defined, ergo they are not born gay.

And if that is not correct then I would ask, if it was completely genetic then what would you expect?

While I do agree there is a genetic factor, I do not believe anyone is 'born gay'

Another easy one to discredit. I will admit I just scanned it but the following things make it easy:

1. No scientific credentials given by the author.
2. No peer-reviewed journal published it.
3. Concerned Women of America? That's a political activist group. We haven't given you anything from Log Cabin Republicans or PFFLAG but have instead opted for actual scientific studies.

Try a search on PubMed instead of on google next time.

She wouldn't want to do that!! After all, the only studies she might find in credible peer-reviewed journals that *might* support her view would have to date back to the 70's or 80's and would thus have been refuted by more recent journals.

What is everyone talking about? There is no problem with gays in modern societies; in fact you could say that everyone should get along, no matter if they are homosexual or not.
Also, the scientific data genetic analysis and research into homosexuality has hinted that homosexual members of a population may be beneficial to the population. For example, in lesser primates, homosexual members of the society play a big role in keeping the group together, as these gays are less aggressive with each other over females, and so can be a bonus to the group, especially if only one pair breed anyway.

You are wrong because:

Science does not require a 100% correlation in material for the correlation to be significant. A correlation of 45% OVER the expected is highly likely to be statistically significant.

Yes but here you do need a 100% correleation to prove that being gay is 100% genetic.

Flawed reasoning:
Have you ever seen identical twins? I have and I can tell you, they are NOT identical... (even not physically, so please leave out the environmental crap). Genetics is not like math, it is not exact. I don't know the proper English term for it, but given the same genes, more than one possible evolution into a human being is possible, as some genes have a chance for e.g. 70% to dominate the other gene of a gene pair.
When one sees that the percentage is 55% instead of the expected 7-10% under 'not genetically defined' hypothesis, there must be a genetic factor that comes with it.
(cfr other posts: this higher percentage has also been found in tests where twins were raised seperately).
So, I still don't see why people cannot be born gay...

And personally, I question the enviromental factors that made me gay, as I can't see any... But this is personal and not scientific...

Identical twins are identical, on a genetical level. Perhaps you're talking about genetic mutations, in which case, there would be such a small effect from generatrion to generation, even if one of the twins is gay.

While I do agree there is a genetic factor, I do believe anyone is 'born gay'

Heh heh, you mean "do not".

Height is genetic, though, isn't it, and I am taller than my twin. Who is Bi.
Go figure.

Becaue there are other parts of the new testement which also condemn homosexuality, not that I expect you to listen to that.

Quote them, so they are impossible to ignore.

No, I have no problem with religion. I am both a Christian and a scientist and I know how this works. But if a person claimed to have found irrefutable proof but didn't go about it by the scientific method, I would laugh at them.

Science is not stating an opinion and then searching for evidence to prove it, while ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Science is looking at all the available evidence and coming to the most likely conclusion. For you to say "well, they found scientific evidence to back up their claims" is to prove that they weren't even trying to be scientific - they were just trying to back up a previous bias.

So lets just say that a Christian scientist who always believed that homosexuality wasnt genetic, went about his research in a scientific manner, looking at eveidence both for and against his claim and then discovered that homosexualtiy wasnt genetic, you would have no problem with that

What is everyone talking about? There is no problem with gays in modern societies; in fact you could say that everyone should get along, no matter if they are homosexual or not.
Also, the scientific data genetic analysis and research into homosexuality has hinted that homosexual members of a population may be beneficial to the population. For example, in lesser primates, homosexual members of the society play a big role in keeping the group together, as these gays are less aggressive with each other over females, and so can be a bonus to the group, especially if only one pair breed anyway.

Look Mr. Monkey Man, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Lets face it, whether you're a monkey or a man, twin or single child, you still may find yourself being oppressed by other gays than yourself, even if yuo're normal. Well it's pretty obvious isn't it?

Yes but here you do need a 100% correleation to prove that being gay is 100% genetic.

I am actually shaking with anger over your refusal to listen. No one has ever said it is one hundred percent genetic. We've all said MULTIPLE TIMES that its is a COMBINATION OF GENETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. That however does NOT make it a CHOICE because its NOT something that can be CONSCIOUSLY CHANGED.

I shall spell this out shall I?

1) Identical twins have identical DNA because there zygote split in two.
2) If one of said twins becomes gay then if homosexuality is "Completely" genetic and people are born that way, you would expect them both to become gay
3) However this does not happen. You only see 55%. Ergo it is not completley geneticly defined, ergo they are not born gay.

And if that is not correct then I would ask, if it was completely genetic then what would you expect?

While I do agree there is a genetic factor, I do believe anyone is 'born gay'
1) No they do not, talk to an actual geneticist, I have. Their DNA is almost indentical but there are still plently of differences. They can still tell twins apart in DNA evidence.
2) NO ONE is claiming being gay in completly genetic, there are envirnmental factors. The kinds that no one can change, let alone make a choice about concious or otherwise.
3) You're right they aren't "born" gay, but it is essentially set in stone by around age 3 at the latest. You know, development that happens to kids outside the womb? The brain is not fully formed when an infant is born, why should sexuality be?

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

Um, I'm a Catholic. Why do I not believe that this actually happened? What passage in the bible says that God's reason was because there were gays in the city? Which city also, might I ask?

I believe that gays are no different than anyone else. I'm not gay or bi. I just think that discriminating against someone for such a stupid reason is wrong.

Besides, everyone goes on and on about the Romans, who *encouraged* homosexuality. It was a part of their culture, like it or not. Same with the Greeks.


Look! No one's complaining about the smilie-kiss! And you can't tell if they are a guy or a girl. Maybe it's two guys. Maybe it's two girls. Maybe it's a guy and a girl. Does it really matter?
:fluffle:


I say: Love is always beautiful, no matter what the form!

Urahole, what on earth are you talking about? And what's with the name?

Identical twins are identical, on a genetical level. Perhaps you're talking about genetic mutations, in which case, there would be such a small effect from generatrion to generation, even if one of the twins is gay.

Genetic mutation surely has nothing to do with it, as by the time the dna has mutated, the body would have been formed. The only way I see that a person could become fully gay due to genetic mutation is if the first cell formed of the sperm from the father and the egg from the mother (transferred during sexual intercourse) had somehow mutated before it had split, and you are more likely to be a serial rapist with red eyes than a gay by genetic mutation.

They way I read it, only imitating reproductive sex acts is forbidden, same with "though shalt not have unclean relations with an animal."
it was a nomad culture then, so they could not afford to maintain non reproductiove members.

I hold homosexuality keeps certain personality types from becoming parents, for example, the "Fab 5" of QESG fame, if they had children they would almost certainly be pretty $&#*## up.
of course this is based on observaitons of celebrities, who can be pretty ^*$$## up anyways.

I admit I speak from the neutrality of one who has never encountered the situation but at a distance.

Lets face it, whether you're a monkey or a man, twin or single child, you still may find yourself being oppressed by other gays than yourself, even if yuo're normal. Well it's pretty obvious isn't it?

I do not understand this sentence.

Urahole, what on earth are you talking about? And what's with the name?



Genetic mutation surely has nothing to do with it, as by the time the dna has mutated, the body would have been formed. The only way I see that a person could become fully gay due to genetic mutation is if the first cell formed of the sperm from the father and the egg from the mother (transferred during sexual intercourse) had somehow mutated before it had split, and you are more likely to be a serial rapist with red eyes than a gay by genetic mutation.
You're probably not even gay, ergo you don't understand what you're saying, as regards the gay end of the matter.

I am actually shaking with anger over your refusal to listen. No one has ever said it is one hundred percent genetic. We've all said MULTIPLE TIMES that its is a COMBINATION OF GENETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. That however does NOT make it a CHOICE because its NOT something that can be CONSCIOUSLY CHANGED.

If it is not 100% genetic then my point stands. My point is this

There are plenty of genes which make people predisposed to any varity of sins but these are not insermountable and it is possible to stop sinning.

You were previously saying "No its not, homosexuality is genetic, you cant change it" and I am saying that you can becaue it is not 100% genetic.

Look! No one's complaining about the smilie-kiss! And you can't tell if they are a guy or a girl. Maybe it's two guys. Maybe it's two girls. Maybe it's a guy and a girl. Does it really matter?
:fluffle:


I say: Love is always beautiful, no matter what the form!

A tip: Look, if you have a problem with the similie-kiss, perhaps you should take it up with the forum administrators, thats what I did on H2G2.

I am actually shaking with anger over your refusal to listen. No one has ever said it is one hundred percent genetic. We've all said MULTIPLE TIMES that its is a COMBINATION OF GENETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. That however does NOT make it a CHOICE because its NOT something that can be CONSCIOUSLY CHANGED.
I'm the one who's shaking with anger. This DOES make it a CHOICE because it IS something that can be conciously changed. God, just because you're bi doesn't mean you know EVERYTHING.

You're probably not even gay, ergo you don't understand what you're saying, as regards the gay end of the matter.


WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? What nonsense is this?

I personally have no problem with gays: i think that they have a right to marriage, especially in my native Nigeria, however, I don't think that geneticism alone is the cause of homosexuality. Controversial it may be to some, but I believe that nurture (the idea of being brought up), the radical new idea just hitting the Nigerian press, may have a major role in bringing up people to be gay.
:fluffle: (A similiei kiss)

I shall spell this out shall I?

1) Identical twins have identical DNA because there zygote split in two.
2) If one of said twins becomes gay then if homosexuality is "Completely" genetic and people are born that way, you would expect them both to become gay
3) However this does not happen. You only see 55%. Ergo it is not completley geneticly defined, ergo they are not born gay.

And if that is not correct then I would ask, if it was completely genetic then what would you expect?

While I do agree there is a genetic factor, I do not believe anyone is 'born gay'

Again, you are ignoring the fact that all genes in every person are not expressed. Often just one of two copies is expressed. In fact, since this "turning off" of certain genes is pretty random, the 55% number makes perfect sense for the genetic component of homosexuality.

You also ignore the fact that hormone balances within the womb can cause an effect which would have nothing to do with the genetics of the fetus - but would cause it to be born a certain way.

If it is not 100% genetic then my point stands. My point is this

There are plenty of genes which make people predisposed to any varity of sins but these are not insermountable and it is possible to stop sinning.

You were previously saying "No its not, homosexuality is genetic, you cant change it" and I am saying that you can becaue it is not 100% genetic.
Its a genetic predisposition to become gay yes, but any and all current evidence points to the fact that once gay always gay.

And these environmental factors are not like poverty or hanging around bathouses for too long. They are exposures to hormones in the womb or other similar chemicals that NO ONE has control over.

Sexulaity is set in stone at a very young age, and no amount of trying to pray out the gay has been able to change it.

If it is not 100% genetic then my point stands. My point is this

There are plenty of genes which make people predisposed to any varity of sins but these are not insermountable and it is possible to stop sinning.

You were previously saying "No its not, homosexuality is genetic, you cant change it" and I am saying that you can becaue it is not 100% genetic.
NO you fool, you can because it is NOT 100% genetic. :mad: Jesus man, homosexuality has been around for almost 30 years now; just try to accept it.

Quote them, so they are impossible to ignore.

Well, as far as I can tell, there's this one bit where God smites a city with lots of naughty people in it. Apparently, some were also gay or something, though it might have just been the angel-raping.

There's a bit about homosexual offenders not 'inheriting the kingdom of God', though I still don't know that a homosexual offender is. A guy who only steals from other guys?

I'm the one who's shaking with anger. This DOES make it a CHOICE because it IS something that can be conciously changed. God, just because you're bi doesn't mean you know EVERYTHING.


Because something is a combination of environmental and genetic factors does not mean you can change it if you want to. I can't change my height.

Could I become bi/homosexual if I wanted to? I could modify my behaviour, but *oops* I DON'T FANCY GIRLS.

Its a genetic predisposition to become gay yes, but any and all current evidence points to the fact that once gay always gay.

And these environmental factors are not like poverty or hanging around bathouses for too long. They are exposures to hormones in the womb or other similar chemicals that NO ONE has control over.

Sexulaity is set in stone at a very young age, and no amount of trying to pray out the gay has been able to change it.

As I have already pointed out, when I say enviromental factors I am talking about being around a disproportiante number of people of the same sex for a disproportinate ammount of time. Eg China (where the male/female ratio is hevelyly in favour of men) and single sex schools (In the UK it is rare to find gay couples in mutli sex schools but far more commen in single sex schools, I dont know about the US)

I can't change my height.

You could if you loved Jesus. ;)

Jeez guys, calm down here. Far as I see it; we can talk openly, I don't think that what we have to say flies too much in defiance of the catholic administrator's personal beliefs. Let's get down to the real question at hand: do gays really exist as a separate part (in an ethereal state) of the main bulk fabric of modern, western cultivated multinationalism?

I don't know why you're getting so worked up about this. This isn't just about saints and sinners defending themselves on line, this is about self-acceptance. And if you're going to continue denying that you're bi, then make it easier for me to believe by being more lucid in your messages.

So lets just say that a Christian scientist who always believed that homosexuality wasnt genetic, went about his research in a scientific manner, looking at eveidence both for and against his claim and then discovered that homosexualtiy wasnt genetic, you would have no problem with that

I would also examine the evidence, read any research that seemed to refute his claims, and would wait for the study to be reproduced before coming to my own conclusions, but I would certainly have no problem with a study that was objectively carried out.

Here's an interesting example. There was a scientist who wanted to study whether or not prayer helps people to heal. So she carried out a small double blind study in which some AIDs patients were prayed for and others were not. The study was not large enough to be statistically significant, but seemed to indicate that prayer helped patients to survive, even though they never met those who were praying for them.

However, she was never able to repeat her study properly. She tried to carry out a larger study, but after unblinding the study, found that she had very few patients in the study that died and no significant results. Then, she and her coworkers started picking random things to look at until they finally found something that correlated with prayer and published the results. This was completely unscientific and thus I would discount her study. However, had she compiled the results, then unblinded them and found that prayer did help, it would be compelling interest and other studies would be performed down that line to attempt to repeat her results.

With regard to homosexuality as a sin, whilst the bible is clear it is anti gay sex, it is less clear wether or not gay attraction is a sin. It does say in the bible that if a man looks at a women lustfully then he has already commited adultery with her in his heart. I presume this applys for homosexuals as well, and later on in the new testement Paul describes unautral lusts between men and other men and women and other women so it would seem that the bible is opposed to homosexual attraction as well.

As I have already pointed out, when I say enviromental factors I am talking about being around a disproportiante number of people of the same sex for a disproportinate ammount of time. Eg China (where the male/female ratio is hevelyly in favour of men) and single sex schools (In the UK it is rare to find gay couples in mutli sex schools but far more commen in single sex schools, I dont know about the US)

Of course, those are factors you pulled out of your butt despite the fact that all scientific evidence points to sexuality as being set in stone during early childhood.

I would also examine the evidence, read any research that seemed to refute his claims, and would wait for the study to be reproduced before coming to my own conclusions, but I would certainly have no problem with a study that was objectively carried out.

Here's an interesting example. There was a scientist who wanted to study whether or not prayer helps people to heal. So she carried out a small double blind study in which some AIDs patients were prayed for and others were not. The study was not large enough to be statistically significant, but seemed to indicate that prayer helped patients to survive, even though they never met those who were praying for them.

However, she was never able to repeat her study properly. She tried to carry out a larger study, but after unblinding the study, found that she had very few patients in the study that died and no significant results. Then, she and her coworkers started picking random things to look at until they finally found something that correlated with prayer and published the results. This was completely unscientific and thus I would discount her study. However, had she compiled the results, then unblinded them and found that prayer did help, it would be compelling interest and other studies would be performed down that line to attempt to repeat her results.
Well well well, Dr. Dempublicents, what text book did you copy this out of? Try saying what YOU think, in your OWN way, and stop copynig everyong else.

With regard to homosexuality as a sin, whilst the bible is clear it is anti gay sex, it is less clear wether or not gay attraction is a sin. It does say in the bible that if a man looks at a women lustfully then he has already commited adultery with her in his heart. I presume this applys for homosexuals as well, and later on in the new testement Paul describes unautral lusts between men and other men and women and other women so it would seem that the bible is opposed to homosexual attraction as well.

I think that Neo Cannen may have stumbled here: we all know that homosexuality is openly endorsed in Song of Solomon (oops can't remember ch. vv) and by some sources, Jesus himself was gay.

Here's an interesting example. There was a scientist who wanted to study whether or not prayer helps people to heal. So she carried out a small double blind study in which some AIDs patients were prayed for and others were not. The study was not large enough to be statistically significant, but seemed to indicate that prayer helped patients to survive, even though they never met those who were praying for them.

However, she was never able to repeat her study properly. She tried to carry out a larger study, but after unblinding the study, found that she had very few patients in the study that died and no significant results. Then, she and her coworkers started picking random things to look at until they finally found something that correlated with prayer and published the results. This was completely unscientific and thus I would discount her study. However, had she compiled the results, then unblinded them and found that prayer did help, it would be compelling interest and other studies would be performed down that line to attempt to repeat her results.

There was a study done recently that set out to prove if prayer works. It was called the mantra study. The result found no significent benefit for those prayed for, but did find that those who were prayed for more had a better chance of suvival. The test was done with a very large sample and used heart operation patients (I cant recall all the details now)

3) However this does not happen. You only see 55%. Ergo it is not completley geneticly defined, ergo they are not born gay.


NO, NO, NO.

a/ No-one said it was completely genetically defined.
b/ It is still statistically significant.
c/ 'They are not born gay' does not follow from 'it is not completely genetically defined'. Height is not completely genetically defined, but is governed by a complex interaction of genetic and environmental factors. But people are born with a high propensity to be short or tall.

I was born short, and no amount of stuffing me with pies would have altered it significantly.

As I have already pointed out, when I say enviromental factors I am talking about being around a disproportiante number of people of the same sex for a disproportinate ammount of time. Eg China (where the male/female ratio is hevelyly in favour of men) and single sex schools (In the UK it is rare to find gay couples in mutli sex schools but far more commen in single sex schools, I dont know about the US)
Then you would be wrong. Those are not considered significant factors in determing sexual orientation, and suggesting otherwise would be doing so without any real evidence.
Sexuality is set in stone long before school starts. And most sex that occurs between to people of the same gender in those situations is out of neccesity, not attatraction.

I think that Neo Cannen may have stumbled here: we all know that homosexuality is openly endorsed in Song of Solomon

Ok this is interesting, can you actually cite sources here?

Of course, those are factors you pulled out of your butt despite the fact that all scientific evidence points to sexuality as being set in stone during early childhood.

Please cite sources, I have too, so do you.

Well well well, Dr. Dempublicents, what text book did you copy this out of? Try saying what YOU think, in your OWN way, and stop copynig everyong else.

I'm not a doctor yet - still got a few years to go here.

And I didn't copy any of it out of a textbook - so stop making silly assumptions. As a scientist, that is exactly what I think, put in my own way.

Then you would be wrong. Those are not considered significant factors in determing sexual orientation, and suggesting otherwise would be doing so without any real evidence.
Sexuality is set in stone long before school starts. And most sex that occurs between to people of the same gender in those situations is out of neccesity, not attatraction.

Neccesity? What neccesity?

I don't want to go off on a tangent here but also King David and Jonathan:

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/faith/jt_add4.htm
1 Samuel 18:1-4 (NIV)
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.
2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house.
3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.
4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

I've told everyone here, I'm just an amateur bible studier; in fact the theological degree that I studied resolved many mysteries of the Bible.

Do you have a king stephen version bible (latin of course). If you open the oxford university press publication (1994) to interpretation 1.3-55 (13) than we can clearly see that a scribe mistakenly translated "rwg-ffam" (phonetic) hebrew for woman, earth, creation (v.+n.) to the latin man vir which is man.
QED

Neccesity? What neccesity?

For sex?

5:4-8, 5:10-16, and 8:1-3, apparently, although I can't find the text on the net. If anyone of you has a bible handy, I'd be interested.

Neccesity? What neccesity?
Ummm you know that biological drive you have that makes you want to have sex? You know how when you're not getting any, you can get desperate for sexual contact? Yeah that one. Oh BTW you might not think that this is a necessity, but that doesn't matter. Lots of people do, and they don't care what you think about it.

I don't want to go off on a tangent here but also King David and Jonathan:
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.
2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house.
3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.
4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women


I have heard pro-gay-biblical lobbyists spout this one time and time again. I think is is sad that people think that David and Jonothan were gay, can't two men be extremly close without being gay. David and Jonothans lives were at risk, the two of them were working togther to save David's life. And as for Jonothan giving David his clothes, doesnt mean Jonothan was naked. The robes and tunic were outer level clothes, he would still have been wearing something akin to a long vest. And the belt was the belt that carried his weapon, not what held his trousers up.

5:4-8, 5:10-16, and 8:1-3, apparently, although I can't find the text on the net. If anyone of you has a bible handy, I'd be interested.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/Song_of_Solomon.html

As I have a small interest in Bible study, I have aquired rights of access to the MO state/church combined library, about 50miles from my abode. I could provide a map if anyone is interested: they are very helpful and membership is free!!!!

Please cite sources, I have too, so do you.
In the nicest possible way...Neo Cannen is clearly a mental delinquent. Throughout this discussion, his arguments have clearly been pulled out of thin air, unsupported and unclear. While he has a promising future, he doesn't know how to express his ideas right now.
UK and US on the other hand knows his shit, but that is only one interpretation of the book of solomon. He's just assuming that he can talk rubbish just because you're all ignorant.

While I was looking, I found this, which is extremist but quite interesting.

Have to go and feed boyfriend now. Enjoy.

http://www.religion-is-bunk.org/homobib.html

Please cite sources, I have too, so do you.
I drop down to the computer to browse for a few hours and I come on here and someone is demanding a fucking bibliography...sweet mother of divine Jesus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Scotia
5:4-8, 5:10-16, and 8:1-3, apparently, although I can't find the text on the net. If anyone of you has a bible handy, I'd be interested.


http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/Song_of_Solomon.html

Oh... That was disappointing.

I really am going now.

I have heard pro-gay-biblical lobbyists spout this one time and time again. I think is is sad that people think that David and Jonothan were gay, can't two men be extremly close without being gay. David and Jonothans lives were at risk, the two of them were working togther to save David's life. And as for Jonothan giving David his clothes, doesnt mean Jonothan was naked. The robes and tunic were outer level clothes, he would still have been wearing something akin to a long vest. And the belt was the belt that carried his weapon, not what held his trousers up.

So the guy who David lives with, and says is more dear to him than any woman wasn't his boyfriend? Yeah generally any straight friends I said that to would assume I was coming on to them.

Geee, maybe that's because they don't claim to be the Word of God?
So do you believe in God? If so where did that belief come from?
And where did their belief come from? etc.

If not then what do you care? Bill Clinton's Autob probably measures him favourably against God. You believe Clinton's god?

He's just assuming that he can talk rubbish just because you're all ignorant.

Hey! I'm not!

(I do get to self-define, right?)

Please cite sources, I have too, so do you.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14733889

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3180761

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15488542

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11910791


There, those should get you started at least.

I think that Neo Cannen may have stumbled here: we all know that homosexuality is openly endorsed in Song of Solomon (oops can't remember ch. vv) and by some sources, Jesus himself was gay.
and I'm sure that from some sources.. you're an idiot.. but as most of us don't have the wherewithal to check let's suspend judgement (judging people is wrong!!)

Also, the scientific data genetic analysis and research into homosexuality has hinted that homosexual members of a population may be beneficial to the population. For example, in lesser primates, homosexual members of the society play a big role in keeping the group together, as these gays are less aggressive with each other over females, and so can be a bonus to the group, especially if only one pair breed anyway.
They're not gay.. they're just cunning monkeys.. (David Attenborough voice) the monkeys lie in wait.. for the opportunity.. to attack.. the alpha male when he is in a weakened state.. for instance.. after copulation

I would like to move to Greenwich, CT and would like to know if anyone has any details about Bible study groups around that area. Any answers please?

So the guy who David lives with, and says is more dear to him than any woman wasn't his boyfriend? Yeah generally any straight friends I said that to would assume I was coming on to them.

What he means is that his friendship with Jonothan was more important to him than any sexual relationship with any women. I believe that is true of most friendships, I dont know about you.

Judging people is a neccessary part of modern society; without it, all hell would break loose. As a Nigerian national, currently in process of emigrating to the US for financial reasons, I am totally prepared for you to critisize me all you like; because if you don't, then I am going to critisize your mom.

Who on earth is david atenborough

Judging people is a neccessary part of modern society; without it, all hell would break loose. As a Nigerian national, currently in process of emigrating to the US for financial reasons, I am totally prepared for you to critisize me all you like; because if you don't, then I am going to criticise your mom.
Judging is a necessary part of the justice system; which is in turn a part of modern society; especially when rich people can buy their way out of trouble. Capitalism rocks.

Try emigrating to the UK. It's easier. Basically you say 'hi, I want to emigrate..' and you're in.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHO DAVID ATTENBOROUGH IS???????

BLASPHEMY

What he means is that his friendship with Jonothan was more important to him than any sexual relationship with any women. I believe that is true of most friendships, I dont know about you.
heh yeah...I'm not exactly the best person to ask about sexual relationships with women...
Also, I was just pointing that interpreation out I don't necesarily believe/care about it.

Who on earth is david atenborough

Hello, I'm Sir David Attenborough. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/who/david_attenborough.shtml)

I already own a house in the UK snapsh1t, and yes, I may engage in sodomy but that does no undermine my rights to move to the United States and America if I feel the sudden urge to. Do you understand? I hate your jails in the UK and I am sick of tony blair looking up to george bush like some perverted sea monkey, so actually I think CT (conneticuit, dumbass) is a far better alternative than your historically dull god-forsaken island.

historically dull god-forsaken island.

If you are refering to the UK, we have a far richer history than the US, as its quite a bit longer.

If it is not 100% genetic then my point stands. My point is this

There are plenty of genes which make people predisposed to any varity of sins but these are not insermountable and it is possible to stop sinning.

You were previously saying "No its not, homosexuality is genetic, you cant change it" and I am saying that you can becaue it is not 100% genetic.

There are plenty of things that are not 100% genetic that cannot be changed. Height for instance easily comes to mind.

I think that Neo Cannen may have stumbled here: we all know that homosexuality is openly endorsed in Song of Solomon (oops can't remember ch. vv) and by some sources, Jesus himself was gay.

I wasn't going to reply to this thread until I saw this particular statement.

What fascinates me about arguments like this is that they only make sense when examined in a vaccum. Now I haven't read th eentire contents of this thread because it is much too long now so forgive me if I cover any ground that has already been discussed.

In the Old Testament when Mosaic Law was introduced, Homosexual conduct was punishable by death. There is nothing to suggest that this ever changed through the time of the Pharisees at the cusp of the New Testament. In fact, the Law had gotten more and more extreme and conservative over the centuries.

Given a culture that utterly and consistently outlaws homosexuality, how can you possibly think that any piece of literature that would openly endorse homsexual romance would not only be accepted, but made into Holy Scripture? I mean honestly... It just doesn't make sense.

So the natural question is, how does one explain it? I think this deserves a bit of research but here are some surface thoughts... If you read the Song of Solomon in its entirety, you will see that some chapters are clearly written in reference to a woman. (A Princess, to be exact). Perhaps the chapters that refer to the love for a man were, in fact, written by her about Solomon? Don't make the mistake of assuming that King Solomon himself wrote part or even any of this book.

As for the second statement... "By some accounts..." I find that offensive if for no other reason than you cite some amorphous reference that may or may not have any credibility, and then expect people to agree with the argument. Homosexuality was forbidden in the New Testament too, friend. Once again it has to fit. I could prove Jesus was married more easily than you could even attempt to prove He was gay.

I'm the one who's shaking with anger. This DOES make it a CHOICE because it IS something that can be conciously changed. God, just because you're bi doesn't mean you know EVERYTHING.

A. I am gay. Not bi.
2. It cannot be consciously changed, I've tried.
III. I may not know everything but I understand genetics, which is more than I can say for everyone who's arguing its not a choice.

I already own a house in the UK snapsh1t, and yes, I may engage in sodomy but that does no undermine my rights to move to the United States and America if I feel the sudden urge to. Do you understand? I hate your jails in the UK and I am sick of tony blair looking up to george bush like some perverted sea monkey, so actually I think CT (conneticuit, dumbass) is a far better alternative than your historically dull god-forsaken island.
I think he's having a go at British history..

:mp5:

Better than having four hundred years of fighting and.. not a lot else.

If you hate the jails.. don't commit crimes. Actually, you don't go to jail for crime here anymore. What did you do to get into jail?

What's a sea monkey?

So the natural question is, how does one explain it? I think this deserves a bit of research but here are some surface thoughts... If you read the Song of Solomon in its entirety, you will see that some chapters are clearly written in reference to a woman. (A Princess, to be exact). Perhaps the chapters that refer to the love for a man were, in fact, written by her about Solomon? Don't make the mistake of assuming that King Solomon himself wrote part or even any of this book.
.

In my bible, the distinicton between the male and female speeking is under beloved and lover.

If you are refering to the UK, we have a far richer history than the US, as its quite a bit longer.

Are you trying to suggest that the UK is better than the US? I speak for all americans, immigrants or otherwise, that really we don't give one sh1t about your country or your troops. I mean, c'mon, who has the better troops? Your SAS are a bunch of pansies. As for you democracy and history, I think that the House of Representatives is a far better version of your sleasy commons; and it was invented beforehand. I may be a Nigerian, but I know facts better than anyone; expecially when it is about the UK.

I wasn't going to reply to this thread until I saw this particular statement.

What fascinates me about arguments like this is that they only make sense when examined in a vaccum. Now I haven't read th eentire contents of this thread because it is much too long now so forgive me if I cover any ground that has already been discussed.

In the Old Testament when Mosaic Law was introduced, Homosexual conduct was punishable by death. There is nothing to suggest that this ever changed through the time of the Pharisees at the cusp of the New Testament. In fact, the Law had gotten more and more extreme and conservative over the centuries.

Given a culture that utterly and consistently outlaws homosexuality, how can you possibly think that any piece of literature that would openly endorse homsexual romance would not only be accepted, but made into Holy Scripture? I mean honestly... It just doesn't make sense.

So the natural question is, how does one explain it? I think this deserves a bit of research but here are some surface thoughts... If you read the Song of Solomon in its entirety, you will see that some chapters are clearly written in reference to a woman. (A Princess, to be exact). Perhaps the chapters that refer to the love for a man were, in fact, written by her about Solomon? Don't make the mistake of assuming that King Solomon himself wrote part or even any of this book.

As for the second statement... "By some accounts..." I find that offensive if for no other reason than you cite some amorphous reference that may or may not have any credibility, and then expect people to agree with the argument. Homosexuality was forbidden in the New Testament too, friend. Once again it has to fit. I could prove Jesus was married more easily than you could even attempt to prove He was gay.

Now, I don't know about the interpretation of Song of Solomon but let's examine some other scripture here.

Christ says "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."
Do you know anyone who wants to be property? The Bible condones that.
Is genocide something that you would have done unto you?
Would you like to be forced to marry your rapist?

In Genesis, it says that God created all animals and then created all humankind. Then it says that God created one man, then all the animals, then one woman.

Christ is born under 2 different kings that lived in vastly different years in separate Gospels.

The Bible is not a perfect document. Anyone who believes it is is either deluding themselves, or hasn't read it and is simply following along like a sheep.

I think he's having a go at British history..

:mp5:

Better than having four hundred years of fighting and.. not a lot else.

If you hate the jails.. don't commit crimes. Actually, you don't go to jail for crime here anymore. What did you do to get into jail?

What's a sea monkey?

Yay! Sea Monkeys! (http://www.sea-monkeys.com/)

Oh and also, I'm not trying to start something, but as I am pretty Irish I have to say: Fuck England.

Homosexuality is not something a person chooses.

Sure, I could have sex with women, have children and lead a heterosexual life, but I would not enjoy it. I have absolutely no attraction to females, and could never imagin ever being with one.

I did not choose to be this way, but it is how I am.

Homosexuality has been around long before the advent of Christianity(which is just an amalgamation of earlier religions...mostly Mithras worshipping paganism I believe).

The Bible is not the word of God. The Bible is the word of god interpreted through human beings, and so is vulnerable to being manipulated.

I'm not a doctor yet - still got a few years to go here.

And I didn't copy any of it out of a textbook - so stop making silly assumptions. As a scientist, that is exactly what I think, put in my own way.

You have to realize Dem, Ura is completely incapable of writing something like that him/herself. The only way to produce coherent, intelligence writing would be to copy from a text book. So he assumes that must be what is going on with you.

A. I am gay. Not bi.
2. It cannot be consciously changed, I've tried.
III. I may not know everything but I understand genetics, which is more than I can say for everyone who's arguing its not a choice.

He's not worth replying to, Pracus. Urahole seems to think that anything intelligent can't possibly come from someone else.

Are you trying to suggest that the UK is better than the US? I speak for all americans, immigrants or otherwise, that really we don't give one sh1t about your country or your troops. I mean, c'mon, who has the better troops? Your SAS are a bunch of pansies. As for you democracy and history, I think that the House of Representatives is a far better version of your sleasy commons; and it was invented beforehand. I may be a Nigerian, but I know facts better than anyone; expecially when it is about the UK.
Dude, UK boy scouts could own the US marines!! Only sections of the US military worth caring about are the Rangers, 101st Airborne and the Seals.

You're one impressive comedian. So, you own a house in the UK and you consider yourself American but originate from Nigeria. And you bash the SAS. Ok..

If you don't give a shit about our troops then we'll take them back and watch Iraq implode while US soldiers get blown to pieces.

But.. the SBS own the SAS..

Now Ireland, especially the half of Ireland that you live in, is even worse than England. Very well, f*ck England (they are quite tonk) but rape the Irish while their backs are turned and drive away their ancestral sheep.

Are you trying to suggest that the UK is better than the US? I speak for all americans, immigrants or otherwise, that really we don't give one sh1t about your country or your troops. I mean, c'mon, who has the better troops? Your SAS are a bunch of pansies. As for you democracy and history, I think that the House of Representatives is a far better version of your sleasy commons; and it was invented beforehand. I may be a Nigerian, but I know facts better than anyone; expecially when it is about the UK.

As far as the British army and American army compares, the US special forces receive simmilar levels and types of training as British regular forces. This is a fact. And when entering Iraq, it was Royal Marines who opened the briges for the American tanks to arrive. And you must be slightly dillusional. The house of commons existed in the 1500's way before America was granted independence or was even fully colonised by Europe.

Are you trying to suggest that the UK is better than the US? I speak for all americans, immigrants or otherwise, that really we don't give one sh1t about your country or your troops.

Here's one American you do not speak for, sir. Personally I am deeply grateful to the United Kingdom for standing by us and being a true friend and ally in these difficult times. It's easy to be someone's friend when you have nothing to lose.

To all you people of the UK: Thanks.


I know facts better than anyone.

From Miriam-Webster

arrogance
Pronunciation: 'ar-&-g&n(t)s
Function: noun
: a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims

Now Ireland, especially the half of Ireland that you live in, is even worse than England. Very well, f*ck England (they are quite tonk) but rape the Irish while their backs are turned and drive away their ancestral sheep.
No no, I'm an American. Just lots of irish blood. I have been to Northern Ireland though, and its not that bad. Actually quite nice, the violence is nothing like in the troubles and the police state security is pretty much a memory.
Also: Fuck England...still

Being a homo is a sin because it says in the bible that god made adam and EVE. thats in the bible
NOT adam and STEVE!!!!

I'm sorry: was that a personal comment? I may be Nigerian blah blah blah but the only great person out of your country was Napoleon, and he's dead.

I think I speak for all true americans by saying this; and by the way my ancestral heritage is Egypt, so don't even try and say the Brits are the best in the world, because the Egyptian forces kick assss.