PDA

View Full Version : "The American Psychological Assn.:There is No 'Gay' Gene,It's A Choice Folks !"



megimoo
05-13-2009, 10:33 AM
'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

However, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.

The new statement says:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."


"Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to 'prove' that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed," Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion.

There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."

Byrd said the APA's documents both new and old "have strong activist overtones," but the newer document "is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care."

"On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding 'no,'" Byrd wrote. "However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: 'To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.'"

A spokesman for NARTH said the change in statements, although not new, is considered significant for the organization. The APA declined to return a WND call requesting comment.

Byrd questioned whether the APA now plans to study the effectiveness of a variety of therapies for homosexuality.

"Many are entirely without validation, yet practitioners regularly receive Continuing Education credits for teaching these same therapies through APA-approved courses. Perhaps it is time for APA to hold all therapies and all therapists to the standard which they advocate for reorientation therapy," he said.

But he wrote that the changes are substantial, with even a change in the APA's recommendations for additional information.

"Most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups," Byrd wrote. "The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics."

NARTH documents other evidence of a lack of a "gay" gene, too.

For example, Douglas Abbott, a University of Nebraska professor, concluded, "If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic."

NARTH also rebuts some of the advocacy positions taken by homosexual proponents.

"The term 'homophobia' is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds," NARTH explains. "Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'"

WND has reported on those who have left the homosexual lifestyle, and the opposition they face, including when a homosexual advocate attributed the crime of rape to the "sickness" of the ex-"gay" movement.

Among other recent developments in the ongoing argument over the 'innateness" on homosexuality:

A New England organization reports members of a transgender lobby promised to shadow grandmothers and others who will be collecting petition signatures on a traditional marriage amendment.

Actions by members of the homosexual community prompted the American Psychiatric Association to cancel what was to be a discussion of the lifestyle.


And prominent leaders of the homosexual community have stated that only they benefit from hate crimes laws, laws that enhance a penalty for crimes already covered by other statutes based on the thoughts that accompany the criminal act.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940

Gingersnap
05-13-2009, 11:09 AM
If I was a lesbian, I'd applaud this new stance. After all, if there was a "gay gene", I'd be aware that most of my pro-choice sisters would be clamoring for a prenatal test and then would act accordingly. If women are willing to abort in order to get the right sex, they would have little trouble aborting to get the right sexual inclination.

FeebMaster
05-13-2009, 11:10 AM
Choice or biology. Does it matter?

NJCardFan
05-13-2009, 11:38 AM
I do believe that there are some cases where someone was born with the wrong body but those are rare. The reason for this belief is that if there are people who are born with both organs there has to be an instance when a someone with female tendencies were born with a man's body. But for the most part it is a choice. Look no further than Hollywood. You mean to tell me that George Takai, Kelly McGillis, and David Ogden Stires went their entire lives as heterosexuals only to one day wake up and realize they're gay?

Water Closet
05-13-2009, 11:46 AM
Choice or biology. Does it matter?

Only to those who love to stick their noses in what is not their business.

megimoo
05-13-2009, 11:52 AM
If I was a lesbian, I'd applaud this new stance. After all, if there was a "gay gene", I'd be aware that most of my pro-choice sisters would be clamoring for a prenatal test and then would act accordingly. If women are willing to abort in order to get the right sex, they would have little trouble aborting to get the right sexual inclination.I have a feeling that most lesbians wether by chioce or by dependancy are miserable with their choice and wouldn't want any of their offspring,if any, to be in the same boat !It must be a strained,unnatural artificial life pretending to be a natural one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tmhftA4xNA&feature=related:D

noonwitch
05-13-2009, 12:31 PM
Psychology is not biology. If the American Psychiatric Association (the guys who publish the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) were to make a similar statement, it would be a better argument, as psychiatry encompasses biology and psychology. A psychiatrist has an MD or DO, a psychologist doesn't.

I really don't care whether people are gay or straight, or what makes them that way. Someone else's sexuality is not something that affects me.

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 12:49 PM
A well written Wiki article with many references (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation).

The WorldNetDaily article posted on this board tried to play on peoples limited understanding of genetics--as if every trait, physical and personality, were a function of one gene per trait. This article covers the current theories as to the many biological factors--genes, prenatal hormones and brain structure.


Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes. Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications.

There is a wealth of great info in this article with many links to the most recent studies done in behavioral science and pediatrics. The article also does mention the contrarian viewpoint:


The perceived causes of sexual orientation have a significant bearing on the status of sexual minorities in the eyes of social conservatives. The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian think tank in Washington, D.C., argues in the book Getting It Straight that finding people are born gay "would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against 'discrimination;' and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism. However, it is not true." On the other hand, some social conservatives such as Reverend Robert Schenck have argued that people can accept the "inevitable... scientific evidence" while still morally opposing homosexuality.

I understand that Christian think tanks would like to continue the 'choice' belief, but if someone could explain how you can reconcile accepting Homosexuality as a hard-wired personality trait and still argue that is immoral. (re: Rev. Schenck statement in bold)

Doesn't morality deal with things that are a matter of freewill and choice? If we accept that a gay person had no choice in the matter of his sexual orientation, then how does morality become an issue?

Jfor
05-13-2009, 01:00 PM
Wikipedia articles are not trusted sources of information.

linda22003
05-13-2009, 01:03 PM
Wikipedia articles are not trusted sources of information.

And WorldNetDaily is? :p

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 01:08 PM
Wikipedia articles are not trusted sources of information.

Well, good thing this one has about 87 references and a full bibliography so you can decide for yourself.

I understand that this subject makes some people uncomfortable--but being aware of the latest science is something that should be of interest to anyone who endeavors to be well-informed.

noonwitch
05-13-2009, 01:18 PM
Wikipedia articles are not trusted sources of information.


True enough, but the article does a good job of defining the issues for each side. Like I said, I don't care about people being gay or what makes them that way.

The one issue I have with the politically correct way of viewing gays in a psychological/treatment standpoint is that therapists are not supposed to consider childhood sexual abuse as a contributing factor. I'm not saying that alone is what makes people gay, but it is an issue that needs to be explored in therapy, as a possible factor. A good therapist knows how to help someone address this issue without causing the client further emotional pain. Most of the books written about childhood sexual abuse and the effects on adult functioning make it clear that sexual abuse does not affect a person's sexual orientation. Human sexuality is too complex to have a hard boundary like that set in stone.

BadCat
05-13-2009, 01:21 PM
I've never said homosexuality was immoral. I have said it is a social or genetic DEFECT.

A genetic abnormality will soon be detectable by some test. Since it has become acceptable in some countries to abort a baby because of its sex, it should also be acceptable to abort a baby because of its sexual orientation.

You're going to see a lot less fags being born if this turns out to be genetic.

FeebMaster
05-13-2009, 01:28 PM
I've never said homosexuality was immoral. I have said it is a social or genetic DEFECT.

A genetic abnormality will soon be detectable by some test. Since it has become acceptable in some countries to abort a baby because of its sex, it should also be acceptable to abort a baby because of its sexual orientation.

You're going to see a lot less fags being born if this turns out to be genetic.

It will be amusing to see conservatives arguing for abortion and liberals arguing against it, at least.

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 01:31 PM
I've never said homosexuality was immoral. I have said it is a social or genetic DEFECT.

A genetic abnormality will soon be detectable by some test. Since it has become acceptable in some countries to abort a baby because of its sex, it should also be acceptable to abort a baby because of its sexual orientation.

You're going to see a lot less fags being born if this turns out to be genetic.

In the wiki article, Orson Scott Card makes that point:


As well, Orson Scott Card has supported biological research on homosexuality, writing that "our scientific efforts in regard to homosexuality should be to identify genetic and uterine causes... so that the incidence of this dysfunction can be minimized".

What he's advocating would seem to be contrary to another right-wing position--abortion. Or genetic engineering.

Rockntractor
05-13-2009, 01:39 PM
psychology is the religeon of secularists if you can bore me with their beliefs I'll bore you with mine.

Romans 1: 26, 27

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


To condone homoseual behavior you must eliminate several texts in the bible. I'll let God be their judge but I would never tell any gay that his behavior is acceptable according to the bible.

Lager
05-13-2009, 02:14 PM
I really don't care whether people are gay or straight, or what makes them that way. Someone else's sexuality is not something that affects me.

I don't care whether people are gay or straight either, but I do find it interesting, the search for what would cause someone to be physically attracted to the same sex. The drive and the attraction to the opposite sex seems so powerful to me, and obviously the design of our species favors it strongly. One might naturally be curious as to what causes an individual to go against such a basic part of the human programming.

A lot of posters go to pains to make it clear that they don't care about an individual's sexuality. I'm sure most of us here don't give a damn about who sleeps with who in the specific sense. But in a general sense, the issue of homosexuality is being forced into the open for discussion. If the 3 to 5 percent of the population who are homosexual want their sexuality to be considered no different than the sexuality most people are born with and consider the norm, then a conversation about their behavior has to ensue.

FlaGator
05-13-2009, 02:26 PM
Only to those who love to stick their noses in what is not their business.

Perhaps they shouldn't make their business so public.

wilbur
05-13-2009, 02:32 PM
psychology is the religeon of secularists if you can bore me with their beliefs I'll bore you with mine.


Psychology is the religion of the secularists? Say what?

As for the article...

I take no issue with the way the APA revised its text. I imagine it was simply revised to be less controversial. As the text reflects, there really is no hard consensus on the cause of same-sex sexual orientation, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that physiology and genetics play some part. It begs the question why this NARTH group thinks its such a coup for them.. and why theyre so interested. Lets take a look:

Looking at NARTH, we find they call themselves a secular institution for sexuality reorientation therapy. Apparently, it is this groups mission to actually develop and research psychotherapeutic treatments to reverse homosexuality, which they view as a pathological condition. They seem to be financially backed and supported by all the usual suspects of anti-homosexual contingents.. focus on the family, etc... not a single secular group supporting them as far as I can see... so at best this claim of secularism seems like window dressing to protect against claims of religiously based intolerance.

So while they are claiming the APA was activist in the wording of its brochure (and claims it still is, even with the re-wording), there is no question that its nothing but activism that we are getting from NARTH... an organization with a clear vested interest in making sure homosexuality is considered a psychological dysfunction.

When this mysterious Byrd,(ex-president of NARTH) says, "it is clear that efforts to 'prove' that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed...", we can quite plainly see what his own activist agenda is, now that we know a little more about NARTH. Sorry Byrd, we arent that stupid (at least I'm not... can't speak for everyone else here..)

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 02:42 PM
psychology is the religeon of secularists if you can bore me with their beliefs I'll bore you with mine.


To condone homoseual behavior you must eliminate several texts in the bible. I'll let God be their judge but I would never tell any gay that his behavior is acceptable according to the bible.

Taken out of context the bible can be used to justify a lot of things that are entirely un-Christian.


As stated in 2 Peter 3:15-17, we have to be very careful when interpreting the writings of Paul. "As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (KJV)


Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said.

Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm).

Question: What exactly did Jesus himself say about Homosexuality?

Water Closet
05-13-2009, 02:55 PM
Perhaps they shouldn't make their business so public.

If blacks had not made their business so public, they would still be sitting at the back of the bus. The only way to obtain equal rights is to shove it in the establishment's face. Even after all of the "making their business public," domestic partnerships/gay marriage are only recognized in a few places and certainly not at the federal level.

FlaGator
05-13-2009, 03:19 PM
If blacks had not made their business so public, they would still be sitting at the back of the bus. The only way to obtain equal rights is to shove it in the establishment's face. Even after all of the "making their business public," domestic partnerships/gay marriage are only recognized in a few places and certainly not at the federal level.

Then you lose the right to complain about someone commenting on your business. Consider it a cost of change.

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 06:43 PM
Taken out of context the bible can be used to justify a lot of things that are entirely un-Christian.





Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm).

Question: What exactly did Jesus himself say about Homosexuality?


Jhn 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.


Jhn 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

...

Jhn 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.

...

Jhn 8:9 And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.


Jhn 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?


Jhn 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.


..............................

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,


Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

...

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.


Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;


Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Sex outside marriage is adultery. God made male and female to join in marriage.

Water Closet
05-13-2009, 07:21 PM
Sex outside marriage is adultery. God made male and female to join in marriage.

I'll see your John and raise you a Leviticus...


9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

All you sinners enjoying your crayfish etouffe!!!

Really people. Do you want to live your lives by the precepts of a book cobbled together by a bunch of self-serving clergy a few hundred years after the fact?

Lars1701a
05-13-2009, 07:24 PM
In the wiki article, Orson Scott Card makes that point:



What he's advocating would seem to be contrary to another right-wing position--abortion. Or genetic engineering.

I am all for finding a cure and treating the poor child in vetro.

Constitutionally Speaking
05-13-2009, 07:29 PM
Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure


Hazlenut - From the wiki article you quoted.


I MAY give you a million dollars too, but I wouldn't count on it if I were you.

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 07:32 PM
I'll see your John and raise you a Leviticus...



All you sinners enjoying your crayfish etouffe!!!

Really people. Do you want to live your lives by the precepts of a book cobbled together by a bunch of self-serving clergy a few hundred years after the fact?

I see you are still completely without any understanding of the New Covenant. :rolleyes:


Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?


Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.


Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:


Mat 15:20 These are [the things] which defile a man...


Really, people! Do you want to live your lives in complete ignorance of all that is lovely and true in this world?

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 07:37 PM
Hazlenut - From the wiki article you quoted.


I MAY give you a million dollars too, but I wouldn't count on it if I were you.

I got a better idea. You spread your million around to the leading behavioral science and pediatric schools and help them further their understanding of this complex area of study.

By the way, did you ever read past the first paragraph and actually check out some of the many studies? You know, to get better informed on what the current science does know about the brain and sexual orientation.

I understand that this is not everyone's cup of tea. Reading and considering things that don't confirm your beliefs can be challenging.

Rockntractor
05-13-2009, 07:40 PM
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
I think by draught they mean watercloset.

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 07:45 PM
I see you are still completely without any understanding of the New Covenant. :rolleyes:

I'm sure your New Covenant is great and all, but I'll stick with the KJV my grandmother gave me when I was confirmed.


Really, people! Do you want to live your lives in complete ignorance of all that is lovely and true in this world?

Absolutely not. How about you? What did you make of all the studies mentioned in the Wiki article?

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 08:19 PM
I'm sure your New Covenant is great and all, but I'll stick with the KJV my grandmother gave me when I was confirmed.



Absolutely not. How about you? What did you make of all the studies mentioned in the Wiki article?

OH, I have TERRIBLE news for you, then... :(:(

The New Covenant is in the KJV, too. In fact, I believe I was quoting KJV.

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 08:32 PM
OH, I have TERRIBLE news for you, then... :(:(

The New Covenant is in the KJV, too. In fact, I believe I was quoting KJV.

Not my KJV.

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 08:33 PM
Not my KJV.

Maybe you should try reading it sometime. :)

Rockntractor
05-13-2009, 08:46 PM
I'm sure your New Covenant is great and all, but I'll stick with the KJV my grandmother gave me when I was confirmed.



Absolutely not. How about you? What did you make of all the studies mentioned in the Wiki article?
John MacAurthur has a great bible commentary set. you might actually enjoy it.
http://www.gty.org/

He has a lot of free stuff on his site to. You suggest reading for us I'd like to return the favor.

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 08:47 PM
Maybe you should try reading it sometime. :)

Why do you make that assumption?

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 09:02 PM
Why do you make that assumption?

What assumption?

FlaGator
05-13-2009, 09:03 PM
I'll see your John and raise you a Leviticus...



All you sinners enjoying your crayfish etouffe!!!

Really people. Do you want to live your lives by the precepts of a book cobbled together by a bunch of self-serving clergy a few hundred years after the fact?

I'll See your Leviticus and raise you an Acts

Act 10:11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners.
Act 10:12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air.
Act 10:13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
Act 10:14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
Act 10:15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

As for the book being cobbled together a few hundred years after the fact... I would suggest a little research because that claim has been proven as false. If you wish for me to provide some evidence I will be happy to do so.

We are all entitled to live our lives however we see fit as you often point out and if some of us choose to live our lives in service to our Lord then are not we entitled to do so as long as we operate with in the parameters of the law? For a long time I lived my life much as you do and I have given that up as being of no use to me. I live the life I do now because God has changed my heart and the things that I once desired I find to now be a hindrance to my life. My desires are for things my old life could never offer.

I don't condemn your life style, why do you belittle mine?

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 09:05 PM
What assumption?

The one you made.


Maybe you should try reading it sometime. :)

AlmostThere
05-13-2009, 09:06 PM
The current article that has been quoted should be quoted correctly.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html



What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

The last clause of the last sentence seems to be omitted on what I've read here.

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 09:12 PM
The one you made.

If you'd read it, you'd know about the New Covenant.

FlaGator
05-13-2009, 09:21 PM
Not my KJV.

The KJV, however poetic sounding it may be, is not as good of a translation compared with what is available today. Of the english translations I perfer the New International Version (NIV) but the software that I use for research (e-Sword - and it's free) I have loaded about 14 different Bible translations.

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 09:26 PM
If you'd read it, you'd know about the New Covenant.

Well, I've never heard of it--at least in any general/popular use context. And I have read the bible.

Why don't you tell me what the New Covenant means to you?

Rockntractor
05-13-2009, 09:27 PM
The KJV, however poetic sounding it may be, is not as good of a translation compared with what is available today. Of the english translations I perfer the New International Version (NIV) but the software that I use for research (e-Sword - and it's free) I have loaded about 14 different Bible translations.
I am not catholic but the new jerusalem bible flows beautifully and I read it quite often.

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 10:05 PM
Well, I've never heard of it--at least in any general/popular use context. And I have read the bible.

Why don't you tell me what the New Covenant means to you?

To me? Like it's something that doesn't apply to all Christians? :rolleyes:



From Wiki, a source I'm sure you'll accept:

Covenant of grace
The covenant of grace promises eternal blessing for all people who trust in the successive promises of God. Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of these promises. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a "seed" of the woman who would crush the serpent's head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace.

The covenant of grace became the basis for all future covenants that God made with mankind such as with Noah (Genesis 6, 9), with Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17), with Moses (Exodus 19-24), with David (2 Samuel 7), and finally in the New Covenant fulfilled and founded in Christ. These individual covenants are called the biblical covenants because they are explicitly described in the Bible. Under the covenantal overview of the Bible, submission to God's rule and living in accordance with his moral law (expressed concisely in the Ten Commandments) is a response to grace - never something which can earn God's acceptance (legalism). Even in his giving of the Ten Commandments, God introduces his law by reminding the Israelites that he is the one who brought them out of slavery in Egypt (grace).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology



Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.


Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;


Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new [/b]testament[/B] Greek word: diathēkē, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.




G1242 diathēkē dē-δ-thā'-kā covenant, testament

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 10:26 PM
To me? Like it's something that doesn't apply to all Christians? :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

All very interesting. Another way of looking at it, is that the term New Convenant means different things to different people. For example:

(also a wiki article) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant)


The term New Covenant (Hebrew: ברית חדשה, berit hadashah ; Greek: διαθήκη καινή, diathēkē kainē) is used in the Bible (both in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament) to refer to an epochal relationship of restoration and peace following a period of trial and judgment. As are all covenants between God and man described in the Bible, it is "a bond in blood sovereignly administered by God."

The article goes on to cover some of the same area your's does. It would seem New Covenant can mean different things to different people--Jews, Catholics, Calvinists, Evangelicals, etc.

Not knowing the term as you know it, is hardly evidence that I haven't read my bible. Fair enough?

FlaGator
05-13-2009, 10:35 PM
This is an excerpt from a Greek New Testament Interlinear Bible. The Greek comes from the original texts. The lay out is Greek word, its Strong Number and the most common translation for the work based on the context the word is being use.

Luk 22:19 καιG2532 AND λαβωνG2983 [G5631] HAVING TAKEN αρτονG740 A LOAF, ευχαριστησαςG2168 [G5660] HAVING GIVEN THANKS εκλασενG2806 [G5656] HE BROKE, καιG2532 AND εδωκενG1325 [G5656] GAVE αυτοιςG846 TO THEM, λεγωνG3004 [G5723] SAYING, τουτοG5124 THIS εστινG2076 [G5748] τοG3588 IS σωμαG4983 BODY μουG3450 MY, τοG3588 WHICH υπερG5228 FOR υμωνG5216 YOU διδομενονG1325 [G5746] IS GIVEN : τουτοG5124 THIS ποιειτεG4160 [G5720] DO ειςG1519 IN τηνG3588 THE εμηνG1699 OF ME αναμνησινG364 REMEMBRANCE.
Luk 22:20 ωσαυτωςG5615 IN LIKE MANNER καιG2532 ALSO τοG3588 THE ποτηριονG4221 CUP μεταG3326 τοG3588 AFTER δειπνησαιG1172 [G5658] HAVING SUPPED, λεγωνG3004 [G5723] SAYING, τουτοG5124 τοG3588 THIS ποτηριονG4221 CUP "IS" ηG3588 THE καινηG2537 NEW διαθηκηG1242 COVENANT ενG1722 τωG3588 IN αιματιG129 μουG3450 MY BLOOD, τοG3588 WHICH υπερG5228 FOR υμωνG5216 YOU εκχυνομενονG1632 [G5746] IS POURED OUT.

FlaGator
05-13-2009, 10:38 PM
All very interesting. Another way of looking at it, is that the term New Convenant means different things to different people. For example:

(also a wiki article) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant)



The article goes on to cover some of the same area your's does. It would seem New Covenant can mean different things to different people--Jews, Catholics, Calvinists, Evangelicals, etc.

Not knowing the term as you know it, is hardly evidence that I haven't read my bible. Fair enough?

But a covenant between God and man has only one meaning to all people. Since Christ is God then the "New Covenant" is a covenant between God and man.

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 11:00 PM
All very interesting. Another way of looking at it, is that the term New Convenant means different things to different people. For example:

(also a wiki article) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant)



The article goes on to cover some of the same area your's does. It would seem New Covenant can mean different things to different people--Jews, Catholics, Calvinists, Evangelicals, etc.

Not knowing the term as you know it, is hardly evidence that I haven't read my bible. Fair enough?

The Jews generally don't recognize the covenant with Christ. They still live under the covenants of the Old Testament between God and the Children of Israel. The New Covenant with Christ is the same for all Christians, regardless of other theological disagreements. Without that specific covenant, the person in question is not a Christian. All Christians become Christians through that covenant, specifically.

Lager
05-14-2009, 12:19 AM
If blacks had not made their business so public, they would still be sitting at the back of the bus. The only way to obtain equal rights is to shove it in the establishment's face. Even after all of the "making their business public," domestic partnerships/gay marriage are only recognized in a few places and certainly not at the federal level.

You really believe the grievances of the homosexual community are on the same par as the blacks struggle for equal rights?

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 12:22 AM
You really believe the grievances of the homosexual community are on the same par as the blacks struggle for equal rights?

Not necessarily. I was commenting upon the tactics required to wrest rights from the establishment. Being nice and asking "pretty please" leaves you in the back of the bus.

wilbur
05-14-2009, 12:39 AM
You really believe the grievances of the homosexual community are on the same par as the blacks struggle for equal rights?

The situations arent entirely comparable... we never imported them to use as slaves, to my knowledge... however, it wasnt that long ago that sodomy laws were in effect, and homosexual relationships were punishable under the law.. and were punished under the law... there was a case in Texas as recent as 2003 where two gay men were charged with a crime for having relations in the privacy of their own home (supreme court got involved on that one). Again... one of the most consistently discriminated against groups of people... most people just assume some they are whiners looking for "special rights" etc etc... but those who say that sort of thing are profoundly ignorant of the persecution homosexuals have had to endure, pretty much everywhere, pretty much all of the time, with few exceptions, all through history.

So yes... in many ways they are on par with the atrocities blacks had to endure before civil rights.

cat714
05-14-2009, 02:56 AM
The situations arent entirely comparable... we never imported them to use as slaves, to my knowledge... however, it wasnt that long ago that sodomy laws were in effect, and homosexual relationships were punishable under the law.. and were punished under the law... there was a case in Texas as recent as 2003 where two gay men were charged with a crime for having relations in the privacy of their own home (supreme court got involved on that one). Again... one of the most consistently discriminated against groups of people... most people just assume some they are whiners looking for "special rights" etc etc... but those who say that sort of thing are profoundly ignorant of the persecution homosexuals have had to endure, pretty much everywhere, pretty much all of the time, with few exceptions, all through history.

So yes... in many ways they are on par with the atrocities blacks had to endure before civil rights.

I don't think so and there are a lot of black people who would not agree with you. There are people who used to be homosexual and are now straight...and those who used to be heterosexuals and are now gay, but I don't know anyone who used to be black.

A long time ago, it was difficult for gays to be open, but if you were white and stayed "in the closet," no one would bother you. Blacks didn't have that and they suffered greatly as they could not hide who they were.

Throughout history many people were persecuted for many things, so where does it end? Pretty much every race and religion can claim some type of grievience.

Yes, I do think these people are whiners who hate the traditional Christian values that our country was founded on. If laws were passed that gave the same marital rights under civil unions, it still would not be good enough. It's no longer about so-called civil rights anymore.

Being gay is unnatural...there is no way to produce offsprings unless you use technology. I view homosexuality as a fetish...a choice people make because they like it and they decide to act on those desires. I just don't believe there is a gene or hormone or anything else in the biological process that makes one gay.

linda22003
05-14-2009, 07:21 AM
I don't think so and there are a lot of black people who would not agree with you. There are people who used to be homosexual and are now straight...and those who used to be heterosexuals and are now gay, but I don't know anyone who used to be black.



You've never heard of Michael Jackson? :eek:

noonwitch
05-14-2009, 09:12 AM
The KJV, however poetic sounding it may be, is not as good of a translation compared with what is available today. Of the english translations I perfer the New International Version (NIV) but the software that I use for research (e-Sword - and it's free) I have loaded about 14 different Bible translations.



I like the KJV for the flowery language. It's the same language Shakespeare wrote in.

I have an NRSV for denominational purposes. It's what my church officially uses.

Gingersnap
05-14-2009, 11:04 AM
Well, I've never heard of it--at least in any general/popular use context. And I have read the bible.

Why don't you tell me what the New Covenant means to you?

Whoa! The New Covenant is a fundamental piece of basic Christian doctrine. If you haven't heard of it, you may not be tall enough to go on this particular ride. :eek:

Lager
05-14-2009, 11:17 AM
If the grievances of homosexuals hold the same weight as those of people who were discriminated against because of their race, then how long before we have affirmative action for gays? Then schools and businesses would be in the utterly ridiculous position of asking applicants about their sexuality, which I agree with some here, should be a private matter. Sodomy laws are outdated and need to die off. Even though I'm not overly keen on the practice, what two people do with their bodies in private shouldn't be punishable unless someone is hurt or assaulted. Gay or straight.

I'm not denying the persecution homosexuals have endured, but for them avoiding persecution was as easy as keeping their sexuality secret. Michael Jackson aside, most blacks could not appear white to avoid what they had to endure.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 11:18 AM
Whoa! The New Covenant is a fundamental piece of basic Christian doctrine. If you haven't heard of it, you may not be tall enough to go on this particular ride. :eek:

Disclaimer: While I've read the entire OT (in a history course), I have read only parts of the NT.

I understand the concept of the New Convenant, but have never understood how exactly one determines what's valid and not valid from the OT under the terms of the Convenant. For example, did Christ inform his followers somewhere that it was ok to invest in butter and lobster nets?

wilbur
05-14-2009, 11:27 AM
I don't think so and there are a lot of black people who would not agree with you. There are people who used to be homosexual and are now straight...and those who used to be heterosexuals and are now gay, but I don't know anyone who used to be black.


It doesnt matter if they agree with me.... they would be wrong. Blacks who feel offended of the comparison are simply not aware of the persecution homosexuals have had to deal with or have their own prejudice to deal with.



A long time ago, it was difficult for gays to be open, but if you were white and stayed "in the closet," no one would bother you. Blacks didn't have that and they suffered greatly as they could not hide who they were.


I didnt say they were entirely comparable... but I hardly think that so considerably lessens the sting of prejudice, being a little easier to hide.



Throughout history many people were persecuted for many things, so where does it end? Pretty much every race and religion can claim some type of grievience.


It ends when they have equal rights.... and I'll agree, they are most of the way there legally.. though not in the hearts and minds of the people, especially because there are institutions which fight so hard against them (at the advice of ancient dead guys from the middle east, no less).



Yes, I do think these people are whiners who hate the traditional Christian values that our country was founded on. If laws were passed that gave the same marital rights under civil unions, it still would not be good enough. It's no longer about so-called civil rights anymore.


Well, what if we created a special class of marriage for black people, called an "ethnic union", or some such thing... you think they would be content to leave the term "marriage" for the white people?

Call me crazy, but I don't think a lot of gay people would have much of a problem with Christianity if there was more acceptance of them there. Christianity has positioned itself as a permanent enemy of homosexuality, not the other way around.


Being gay is unnatural...there is no way to produce offsprings unless you use technology.

Cmon.... do I really have to type yet another rebuttal to this absurd point? Even I get tired of it sometimes. Please familiarize yourself with arguments from the other side... because if you can parrot this old line its clear you havent even bothered at all. Although it does amuse me when Christians start bowing to some vague 'nature' god that, apparently, we all must obey.

Here's a start: http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm


I view homosexuality as a fetish...a choice people make because they like it and they decide to act on those desires. I just don't believe there is a gene or hormone or anything else in the biological process that makes one gay.

Well, the choice to view homosexuality as a decision or a fetish is completely unfounded and unsupportable by our current scientific knowledge, period. So basically, what we have here, is you consciously choosing to treat your own prejudice as fact, without adequate information to back it up.

We're all glad you have a personal "hunch" that homosexuality is simply a fetish or a choice, but why on earth should we place any value on your personal hunches (based on incomplete information to boot)?

Really, in the end, it does not matter if its a choice or biology.

Gingersnap
05-14-2009, 11:35 AM
Disclaimer: While I've read the entire OT (in a history course), I have read only parts of the NT.

I understand the concept of the New Convenant, but have never understood how exactly one determines what's valid and not valid from the OT under the terms of the Convenant. For example, did Christ inform his followers somewhere that it was ok to invest in butter and lobster nets?

Most Christians aren't red letter Christians so we also pay heed to all the other players in the NT (remember - we believe that entire canon is the Word). The Apostles did, in fact, cover food issues for Christians pretty throughly. Any in depth discussion of red letter Christianity versus traditional Christianity or a discussion of the New Covenant in Christ probably need their own new threads. ;)

hazlnut
05-14-2009, 01:52 PM
Whoa! The New Covenant is a fundamental piece of basic Christian doctrine. If you haven't heard of it, you may not be tall enough to go on this particular ride. :eek:

The term apparently has many different meanings and uses depending on who you talk to. See earlier posts with links. Jews know it as one thing. Catholics another. Calvanists too. Evangelicals as well.

Some people go to Church. Some people go to Church + Bible study. Some deeply spiritual people do neither.

I see the term shows up in different books of the bible in slightly different contexts. Maybe the term as you know it is expressed differently in the Churches I've attended?

Quite honestly, the way MrsSmith was trying to confront me with, it seemed more like I didn't know the secret password-- :)

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 02:19 PM
The term apparently has many different meanings and uses depending on who you talk to. See earlier posts with links. Jews know it as one thing. Catholics another. Calvanists too. Evangelicals as well.

Some people go to Church. Some people go to Church + Bible study. Some deeply spiritual people do neither.

I see the term shows up in different books of the bible in slightly different contexts. Maybe the term as you know it is expressed differently in the Churches I've attended?

Quite honestly, the way MrsSmith was trying to confront me with, it seemed more like I didn't know the secret password-- :)

MrsSmith was just pointing out that you are not that familiar with the content of the Bible. As for the New Covenant it has just one meaning. Where you get this it means different things to different people is beyond me. The old Covenant was fulfilled when Christ died on the Cross and the New Covenant which encompassed all people who believe took its place.

Jews don't recognize the New Covenant so how can it mean anything to them? Calvanists (of which I am one) and the rest of Christianity all agree on what it is.

hazlnut
05-14-2009, 03:21 PM
MrsSmith was just pointing out that you are not that familiar with the content of the Bible. As for the New Covenant it has just one meaning. Where you get this it means different things to different people is beyond me.


I guess you didn't see the Wiki articles posted by MrsSmith and myself.

hazlnut
05-14-2009, 03:27 PM
Jews don't recognize the New Covenant so how can it mean anything to them

From the article linked earlier.


The Jewish view of the New Covenant is no more than a renewed national commitment to abide by God's laws. In this view, the word new does not refer to commitment that replaces a previous one, but rather to an additional and greater level of commitment. Because Jews view the Sinaitic covenant as applying only to Jews and any New Covenant merely a strengthening of the already existing one. They believe that the covenant made with Moses was a New Covenant for the Abrahamic Religion(which the Covenants made with Abraham were still practice). They say that the Hebrew Bible talks about an expansion just like the New Covenant made with Moses. For non-Jews, Judaism advocates the Seven Laws of Noah. See also Jewish eschatology.


Again, you are trying to turn the argument into some sort of secret password that you know the meaning of and I don't. When there are clearly connotations and denotations of the term you are clearly not aware of. What does that prove? Nothing. You have one set of teachings that you follow. I have a different experience with Church and religion. People of the Jewish faith have yet another.

I thought we already went through this, and I was very respectful of your beliefs and your much more in depth study of the bible.

Odysseus
05-14-2009, 03:57 PM
Choice or biology. Does it matter?
Sure. Behavior isn't the same as a biological compulsion. If one wanted to eradicate homosexuality (and I don't, so quit hyperventilating), the biological cause could, theoretically, be prevented or cured through medical intervention. It also severely impacts the civil rights argument, since if gays are biologically determined to be gay, they have little choice in the matter, and it becomes similar to discrimination issues over other biological factors such as race, while if it's simply a lifestyle choice, then those who choose it do so in the knowledge that it will restrict them from certain activities. It's a double-edged sword in that the choice is either a search for a cure or simply a lifestyle choice, in which case they have no business making demands on society to accomodate what they have volunteered for.

Psychology is the religion of the secularists? Say what?
Haven't you noticed the similarities between confession and therapy?

Question: What exactly did Jesus himself say about Homosexuality?
Fabulous are the peacemakers? :D

Not necessarily. I was commenting upon the tactics required to wrest rights from the establishment. Being nice and asking "pretty please" leaves you in the back of the bus.
Actually, non-violent protest was the basic tactic of the civil rights movement. Violent attacks on whites or institutions perceived as white would have alienated the majority and set the movement back years while validating the bigotry of those few who argued that no accomodation was possible. The various militant movements that followed have been substantially less successful in the accomplishment of their goals.

The situations arent entirely comparable... we never imported them to use as slaves, to my knowledge... however, it wasnt that long ago that sodomy laws were in effect, and homosexual relationships were punishable under the law.. and were punished under the law... there was a case in Texas as recent as 2003 where two gay men were charged with a crime for having relations in the privacy of their own home (supreme court got involved on that one). Again... one of the most consistently discriminated against groups of people... most people just assume some they are whiners looking for "special rights" etc etc... but those who say that sort of thing are profoundly ignorant of the persecution homosexuals have had to endure, pretty much everywhere, pretty much all of the time, with few exceptions, all through history.
So yes... in many ways they are on par with the atrocities blacks had to endure before civil rights.
So, America is responsible for the persecution of gays in Medievel Europe, ancient Babylon and modern Iran? Get real. And if gays are so commonly discriminated against in the US, why is it that their per capita income is substantially higher than the national average?

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 04:04 PM
...Actually, non-violent protest was the basic tactic of the civil rights movement. Violent attacks on whites or institutions perceived as white would have alienated the majority and set the movement back years while validating the bigotry of those few who argued that no accomodation was possible. The various militant movements that followed have been substantially less successful in the accomplishment of their goals. ...


I actually was not referring to violence by the phrase "in your face" or similar such phrases. I don't think the gay rights movement has been particularly violent, certainly no more so than the civil rights movement. I was rather referring to what seems to bother some posters here the most, i.e., the high-profile, public displays that are/were part of both movements. In that way, they seem very comparable.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 04:05 PM
From the article linked earlier.



Again, you are trying to turn the argument into some sort of secret password that you know the meaning of and I don't. When there are clearly connotations and denotations of the term you are clearly not aware of. What does that prove? Nothing. You have one set of teachings that you follow. I have a different experience with Church and religion. People of the Jewish faith have yet another.

I thought we already went through this, and I was very respectful of your beliefs and your much more in depth study of the bible.

The article is wrong. The Jews can't believe in a New Covenant because the New Covenant is based on Jesus being the Messiah and they don't belive that He was. There is no secret notion or anything. The New Covenant is that Christ died to cover the sins of all those who believe or will believe and that His resurrection attests to the resurrection that all believers will experience. That is the New Covenant. Believe and live as a believer and you will are saved. Anything else is not part of the covenant between God and Man. Some religions will tell you that it is Belief and this or belief and that but that would mean that salvation was predicated on some action but good works and actions do not fulfill man's end of the New Covenant only belief does that.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 04:13 PM
BTW, the King James also speaks of the New Covenant.


(Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

(Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

(Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

(Heb 12:24) And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

cat714
05-14-2009, 04:20 PM
It doesnt matter if they agree with me.... they would be wrong. Blacks who feel offended of the comparison are simply not aware of the persecution homosexuals have had to deal with or have their own prejudice to deal with.

That arrogant statement from you negates everything else you just said. Why would black people be wrong to think that because Wilbur on CU says so?? :rolleyes:


Cmon.... do I really have to type yet another rebuttal to this absurd point? Even I get tired of it sometimes. Please familiarize yourself with arguments from the other side... because if you can parrot this old line its clear you havent even bothered at all. Although it does amuse me when Christians start bowing to some vague 'nature' god that, apparently, we all must obey.

Actually, I didn't make any mention about Creationism...you just made that ASSumption. To my knowledge, I don't know of any specie that can produce offsprings from homosexual activity. The human body has parts designed for reproduction and it is those parts that are to be used together in sexual union to produce children regardless of whether the Bible approves or not. That's science. You and I and the rest of the world aren't here on earth because our parents created us through homosexual activity.



Well, the choice to view homosexuality as a decision or a fetish is completely unfounded and unsupportable by our current scientific knowledge, period. So basically, what we have here, is you consciously choosing to treat your own prejudice as fact, without adequate information to back it up.

We're all glad you have a personal "hunch" that homosexuality is simply a fetish or a choice, but why on earth should we place any value on your personal hunches (based on incomplete information to boot)?


I don't know who else you are speaking for, but I think you are forgetting that members of the board can freely share their opinions and aren't necessarily trying to "win" an argument. The scientific research on what makes people gay has been modest at best so until something concrete comes out, I view it as a choice or a fetish. I would even go as far as lumping it into the same category with pedophillia.

MrsSmith
05-14-2009, 04:36 PM
The article is wrong. The Jews can't believe in a New Covenant because the New Covenant is based on Jesus being the Messiah and they don't belive that He was. There is no secret notion or anything. The New Covenant is that Christ died to cover the sins of all those who believe or will believe and that His resurrection attests to the resurrection that all believers will experience. That is the New Covenant. Believe and live as a believer and you will are saved. Anything else is not part of the covenant between God and Man. Some religions will tell you that it is Belief and this or belief and that but that would mean that salvation was predicated on some action but good works and actions do not fulfill man's end of the New Covenant only belief does that.

I think the confusion here is that there are 2 New Covenants in the Bible. At one point in the Old Testament, God made a New Covenant with the children of Israel.

The New Covenant with Christ is the New Testament covenant...the covenant under which all Christians are covered. It stems directly from the covenant with Abraham, bypassing all the covenants made with the children of Israel.

The article Nut posted is referring to the covenant in the Old Testament...
New Covenant made with Moses

wilbur
05-14-2009, 04:41 PM
So, America is responsible for the persecution of gays in Medievel Europe, ancient Babylon and modern Iran? Get real. And if gays are so commonly discriminated against in the US, why is it that their per capita income is substantially higher than the national average?

I wasn't aware per capita income was the defining metric for discrimination. It certainly can be one... but you might as well say blacks don't get discriminated against because so many are in the NBA.

And I said that their struggle for equal rights has not been unlike the civil rights movement for African Americans.... they had comparable institutionalized prejudice. For an example, see Dwight Eisenhower's executive order 10450.

What I did not say, was that a homosexual in our country today, has a comparable experience to an African American in the days of segregation... but they have come from similar ground, and still, as of yet, have not made as much headway as African Americans have.

megimoo
05-14-2009, 04:42 PM
Responding to Pro-Gay Theology by Joe Dallas

Joe Dallas, founder of Genesis Counseling, is the author of three books on homosexuality: Desires in Conflict, Unforgiven Sins, and A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement. A former gay rights activist and staff member of a Metropolitan Community Church, he has worked with hundreds of men and women struggling with homosexuality and related problems. Mr. Dallas is available for conferences and seminars, and can be reached at Genesis Counseling, 1774 N. Glassell, Orange, CA 92865, Phone 714-502-1463.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This three-part series will address the pro-gay theology by dividing its arguments--or tenets--into three categories: social justice arguments, general religious arguments, and scriptural arguments. A brief description of these arguments will be provided, followed by a response/rebuttal to each.

Social Justice Arguments
General Religious Arguments
Scriptural Arguments
Major denominations ordaining homosexuals, priests and clergy presiding over same-sex weddings, sanctuaries invaded by boisterous gay activists, debates over homosexuality ripping congregations apart-who would have guessed we would ever reach such a point in church history?

A vigorous debate between Christians and homosexuals shouldn't be surprising in and of itself. If author and commentator Dr. Dennis Praeger is right when he says the Judeo-Christian ethic is responsible for the Western World's disapproval of homosexuality,[1] then conflicts between the Church and the gay rights movement are not only understandable, they are inevitable. (While acceptance of homosexuality in ancient cultures is well documented,[2] the past 2000 years of Western thought have, by and large, rejected it,[3] and the influence of both Old and New Testaments can be credited for that.)[4]

What is surprising, though, is the current trend in which these ethics are not only being challenged, but rewritten as well, most notably in the form of the pro-gay theology.

The pro-gay theology is much like the broader gay rights philosophy, in that it seeks legitimization (not just tolerance) of homosexuality. Gay spokesmen have made no secret of this as being their goal in secular culture; activist Jeff Levi put it plainly to the National Press Club during the 1987 Gay Rights March on Washington:

We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right-as heterosexual Americans already have-to see government and society affirm our lives. Until our relationships are recognized in the law-in tax laws and government programs to affirm our relationships, then we will not have achieved equality in American society.[5]

But pro-gay theology takes it a step further by redefining homosexuality as being God-ordained and morally permissible:

"I have learned to accept and even celebrate my sexual orientation as another of God's good gifts."
-gay author Mel White[6]

When God is reputed to sanction what He has already clearly forbidden, then a religious travesty is being played out, and boldly. Confronting it is necessary because it (the pro-gay theology) asks us to confirm professing Christians in their sin, when we are Biblically commanded to do just the opposite. As Christ's ambassadors on earth, we unfaithfully represent Him if a professing believer's ongoing sin has no effect on our relationship with that believer...which is, in essence, what Paul told the Thessalonians:

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2 Thes 3:6, 14- 15)

Likewise, when Paul heard of a Corinthian church member's incestuous relationship with his stepmother, he ordered the man be excommunicated (1 Cor 5:1-5), then explained the principle of confrontation and, if necessary, expulsion from the community of believers:

http://www.narth.com/docs/dallas.html

megimoo
05-14-2009, 04:55 PM
Romans 1:26-27:
The text reads (in the King James Version):

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;
men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

This passage is unique in that it is the only place in the Bible that refers to same-gender sexual behavior by women. Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, believes that these verses have done more to form Christians' negative opinion of homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. He writes: "For most of us who seriously honor Scripture these verses still stand as the capital New Testament text that unequivocally prohibits homosexual behavior. More prohibitively, this text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible, so that a type of humanity known as 'homosexual' has steadily become the object of contempt and discrimination." 1

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm

noonwitch
05-14-2009, 04:56 PM
This is how it was explained to me in Sunday School:

The Old Covenant is the deal Abraham made with God-he'd follow God's rules, and he and his descendants would be God's people in Canaan/Israel. The rules God expected the Israelites to follow were codified later in the books of the law-Genesis to Deuteronomy.

By the time Jesus arrived on the scene, the Israelites had fallen away from those laws many times, resulting in their exile to Babylon, and their lowered status as a conquered people, by several successive empires. As it appeared impossible for the Israelites to follow God's rules, God sent his son to teach a new understanding of God's relationship to His people. The added bonus of Jesus' coming was that God was no longer just limited to the Israelites. Jesus taught in stories and parables, and he taught in the temples and to non-jews, including romans, samaritans, and anyone else who was interested in his ideas. The Israelites who thought they were in charge of the peoples' faith (the Pharisees and Saducees) didn't like Jesus' message of God as a spirit that anyone can have access to, whether they follow the hundreds of rules laid out in the Law or not. They wanted to be the sole point of access to God, and wanted to keep their hold over the souls of their people. They also feared that the Romans would wipe them out as a race if they got too radical about anything. So the ruling priests at the time, with exceptions like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, figured it would be better for one man to die, then for their whole nation to be destroyed (which happened a few decades later, anyways, at the hands of Titus). The Pharisees, the chief rabbis in Jerusalem, and the roman governor all decided that they would have Jesus killed.

But, 3 days after Jesus' death, He was resurrected and appeared to his followers. The teachings from my liberal church backround would split from most of the christians who post here about the reasons for this. For evangelicals and fundamentalists, Jesus died to appease God's anger at humanity for our sinful ways. By accepting this, and making a commitment to Jesus, God then sends the Holy Spirit to dwell within the soul of the follower, and comforts, counsels and heals those who ask.

The New Covenant is the agreement that christians make with God based on New Testament teachings. The New Covenant is based on the Grace of God, which is available to all who ask for it in Jesus' name. According to this deal, God sends the Holy Spirit to dwell in the hearts of those who have accepted the Grace of God through the death and resurrection. The presence of the Holy Spirit gives counsel on right and wrong, gives comfort to the suffering, and gives healing of a spiritual and physical nature.


There is a lot more as far as theology goes, but much of it just makes it more complicated.

wilbur
05-14-2009, 05:01 PM
That arrogant statement from you negates everything else you just said. Why would black people be wrong to think that because Wilbur on CU says so?? :rolleyes:


Because the discrimination homosexuals have experience in the recent past has been very similar to the same kind of discrimination that African Americans have also endured. Here.. in this country. Historical fact, not opinion, so yes, they would be wrong to be offended.



Actually, I didn't make any mention about Creationism...you just made that ASSumption.


I didnt either...



To my knowledge, I don't know of any specie that can produce offsprings from homosexual activity. The human body has parts designed for reproduction and it is those parts that are to be used together in sexual union to produce children regardless of whether the Bible approves or not. That's science.

The claim that sex enables reproduction, is scientific. The claim its "unnatural" to engage in any manipulations of the downstairs happy parts in a sexual way that does not enable reproduction is not. Thats not science at all, its nonsense.



You and I and the rest of the world aren't here on earth because our parents created us through homosexual activity.


So what? Not to mention, its puzzling that those coming from a Judeo-Christian perspective use this argument.. homosexuality is supposed to be a sin... and human nature is sinful by default (ie original sin). So any sinful behavior is really just an expression of human nature. So homosexuality is human nature... and human nature is the thing Jesus is supposed to help us transcend. So the problem isnt that homosexuality is "unnatural" as you put it, its that it is a part of our sinful nature, presumably.



I don't know who else you are speaking for, but I think you are forgetting that members of the board can freely share their opinions and aren't necessarily trying to "win" an argument. The scientific research on what makes people gay has been modest at best so until something concrete comes out, I view it as a choice or a fetish. I would even go as far as lumping it into the same category with pedophillia.

Which shows you know nothing about either, and have not bothered to correct the problem before jumping to unsupportable conclusions.

hazlnut
05-14-2009, 05:04 PM
The article is wrong. The Jews can't believe in a New Covenant because the New Covenant is based on Jesus being the Messiah and they don't belive that He was.

Really?? Because, according to the article, the term "New Covenant" appears first in the Hebrew bible. So, I guess they were foreshadowing its appearance later on?


The term New Covenant (Hebrew: ברית חדשה, berit hadashah ; Greek: διαθήκη καινή, diathēkē kainē) is used in the Bible (both in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament) to refer to an epochal relationship of restoration and peace following a period of trial and judgment. As are all covenants between God and man described in the Bible, it is "a bond in blood sovereignly administered by God."

Seems like there are many 'new' covenants, and many interpretations of what it means to people of different faiths.

This paragraph I found particularly interesting:


Among Christians, there are significant differences on the question of membership in the New Covenant. These differences can be so serious that they form a principal reason for division i.e., denominationalism. Christian denominations exist because of their answer to this question. The first major split is between those that believe that only believers are members of the New Covenant, the credobaptist view, and those that believe that believers and their children are members of the New Covenant, the paedobaptist view. Secondarily, there are differences among paedobaptists as to the nature of the membership of children in the covenant.

Many different flavors of ice cream as a youth ministry pastor used to say.

MrsSmith
05-14-2009, 05:21 PM
Really?? Because, according to the article, the term "New Covenant" appears first in the Hebrew bible. So, I guess they were foreshadowing its appearance later on?



Seems like there are many 'new' covenants, and many interpretations of what it means to people of different faiths.

This paragraph I found particularly interesting:



Many different flavors of ice cream as a youth ministry pastor used to say.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=136630&postcount=4

>Other thread

megimoo
05-14-2009, 05:31 PM
Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal

Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302.
Once that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians, including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).

This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.

This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.

What Really Happened?
Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.


Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco.

Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled,

"Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud and Healthy."

Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.

The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section "302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.

After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.

According to Satinover, "How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer's apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth."
......................................
Dr. Socarides Speaks Out

Dr. Satinover shows how APA's policies were influcenced by closeted homosexual APA leaders.
Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.

Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: "To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years…"

Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.

"To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost-a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences." Dr. Socarides' report is available from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality: www.narth.com.
......................................

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DSM
The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the most widely used diagnostic reference book utilized by mental health professionals in the United States.

It's a manual by which all diagnostic codes are derived for diagnosis and treatment - every single physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the United States refers to this book in order to code for a diagnosis. In plain English, what does this mean? It means that for over 30 years physicians have been prevented from properly diagnosing homosexuality as an aberrant behavior and thus, cannot, recommend a course of treatment for these individuals.

Prior to that time, homosexuality had been treated as a mental disorder under section "302. Sexual Deviations" in the DSM-II. Section 302 said, in part:

"This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts … performed under bizarre circumstances. … Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them."

Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302.
Once that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians, including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 05:56 PM
I think the confusion here is that there are 2 New Covenants in the Bible. At one point in the Old Testament, God made a New Covenant with the children of Israel.

The New Covenant with Christ is the New Testament covenant...the covenant under which all Christians are covered. It stems directly from the covenant with Abraham, bypassing all the covenants made with the children of Israel.

The article Nut posted is referring to the covenant in the Old Testament...

Perhaps you are right. I knew that Jeremiah referred to a New Covenant but that was in reference to the coming of Christ. I completely over looked Moses. Thank you for the correction.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 06:06 PM
Originally Posted by hazlnut
Question: What exactly did Jesus himself say about Homosexuality?

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

wilbur
05-14-2009, 06:07 PM
BTW, does anyone else find it ironic that there is strong evidence suggesting King James of the KJV, was homosexual?

MrsSmith
05-14-2009, 06:15 PM
BTW, does anyone else find it ironic that there is strong evidence suggesting King James of the KJV, was homosexual?

No. Many wonderful homosexuals were CELIBATE priests. Sexual behavior IS a choice.

hazlnut
05-14-2009, 06:25 PM
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

Mine says: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

Neither specifically mentions homosexuality.

To whom was Jesus speaking? What was the historical context of the quote?

Lars1701a
05-14-2009, 06:28 PM
Mine says: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

Neither specifically mentions homosexuality.

To whom was Jesus speaking? What was the historical context of the quote?



Homosexuality is covered under that quote. For instance: Evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications etc.

Gingersnap
05-14-2009, 06:44 PM
BTW, does anyone else find it ironic that there is strong evidence suggesting King James of the KJV, was homosexual?

No. I f you read the bible, you will find all sorts of fallen people in it and there are some big names there like Lot, among others.

Nonbelievers seem to think that only really super holy people have any street cred in Christianity but this isn't true at all. On the contrary, some of the most failed Christians have been some of the most influential Christians over the years.

By having a standard of behavior, Christians individually will always miss the mark sometimes and sometimes spectacularly. If you have no standard of behavior other than your own feelings, inclinations, and opportunities, you will never miss your own mark and you can never be criticized for not living up to your own standards.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 07:01 PM
Mine says: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

Neither specifically mentions homosexuality.

To whom was Jesus speaking? What was the historical context of the quote?

Fornication covers all sexual immorality, the greek word is porneia which covers prostitution, adultrey, incest and homosexuality. 16th century english used the word fornication to cover all sexual immorality so the word porneia translated nicely back then. Since then the word fornication has come to mean mostly sex outside of marriage but the original intent the King James translation was to cover all sexual sin. So see your bible does mention homosexuality.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 07:05 PM
No. I f you read the bible, you will find all sorts of fallen people in it and there are some big names there like Lot, among others.

Nonbelievers seem to think that only really super holy people have any street cred in Christianity but this isn't true at all. On the contrary, some of the most failed Christians have been some of the most influential Christians over the years.

By having a standard of behavior, Christians individually will always miss the mark sometimes and sometimes spectacularly. If you have no standard of behavior other than your own feelings, inclinations, and opportunities, you will never miss your own mark and you can never be criticized for not living up to your own standards.

As an example look at Augustine. Before he converted he never married, had a mistress and a child, was a hedonist (much to his Christian mother's angst) and had numerious sexual encounters then went on to become maybe the most influential Christian theologian other that Paul of Tarsus and Jesus Himself.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by wilbur
BTW, does anyone else find it ironic that there is strong evidence suggesting King James of the KJV, was homosexual?

Does anyone else find it ironic that wilbur is an atheist yet he spends more time talking about Christianity than some Christian ministers?

wilbur
05-14-2009, 07:26 PM
Does anyone else find it ironic that wilbur is an atheist yet he spends more time talking about Christianity than some Christian ministers?

I only bring it up when it needs to be addressed and discussions need to be brought back down to planet Earth... since it is the world-view from which most issues around here are framed by default (and skewed by).

hazlnut
05-14-2009, 07:27 PM
Homosexuality is covered under that quote. For instance: Evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications etc.

That would be your interpretation.

Mythic
05-14-2009, 07:29 PM
I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. Maybe some people choose it, but I find that very hard to believe. I have a gay relative, and after what he went through I can't imagine he just decided he wanted to be gay. I believe that homosexuality is some type of psychological problem.

MrsSmith
05-14-2009, 08:02 PM
Mine says: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

Neither specifically mentions homosexuality.

To whom was Jesus speaking? What was the historical context of the quote?

He was speaking to his disciples, explaining why the Pharisees were in the wrong. I thought you'd read all this?

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 08:11 PM
That would be your interpretation.

As I explained in a previous post it is more than an interpretation; it is the definition of the word at the time it was first used. It is your use of the modern definition that is causing your misunderstanding.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 08:16 PM
I only bring it up when it needs to be addressed and discussions need to be brought back down to planet Earth... since it is the world-view from which most issues around here are framed by default (and skewed by).

I have never known you to pass up any thread that delves in to Christianity and since you don't believe in Christianity your behavior seems obsessive. I don't believe in UFOs and thus I don't weigh in on every tread that mentions UFOs. If people want to believe in UFOs why should I stir the pot? I don't believe in macro-evolution either so I don't get involved in many evolution threads. It does make a difference to me that you or others believe in it.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 08:20 PM
I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. Maybe some people choose it, but I find that very hard to believe. I have a gay relative, and after what he went through I can't imagine he just decided he wanted to be gay. I believe that homosexuality is some type of psychological problem.

That is starting to seem more likely. A personality deviation of some sort. While it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out to be genetic at some level, if it doesn't then its going to really upset the liberal Christians who say that we must not ask homosexuals to repent of their sinful behavior because its genetic so God most want them to be gay.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 08:22 PM
I have never known you to pass up any thread that delves in to Christianity and since you don't believe in Christianity your behavior seems obsessive. I don't believe in UFOs and thus I don't weigh in on every tread that mentions UFOs. If people want to believe in UFOs why should I stir the pot? I don't believe in macro-evolution either so I don't get involved in many evolution threads. It does make a difference to me that you or others believe in it.

Yes, but the number of threads in which behaviour, whether it be opposition to gay marriage, opposition to abortion, opposition to drugs and sexual "immorality," or opposition to certain other political stances, e.g. drugs (lots of "oppositions" there), that are justified by UFOs is rather miniscule to those that are justified by a belief in Christianity. Belief in God seems to be the one stop shop for opposition.

MrsSmith
05-14-2009, 08:23 PM
That is starting to seem more likely. A personality deviation of some sort. While it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out to be genetic at some level, if it doesn't then its going to really upset the liberal Christians who say that we must not ask homosexuals to repent of their sinful behavior because its genetic so God most want them to be gay.

Let us not forget that things like alcoholism are far more likely to be genetic, yet society does not tell the children of alcoholics that it's just fine for them to abuse alcohol.

MrsSmith
05-14-2009, 08:23 PM
Yes, but the number of threads in which behaviour, whether it be opposition to gay marriage, opposition to abortion, opposition to drugs and sexual "immorality," or opposition to certain other political stances, e.g. drugs (lots of "oppositions" there), that are justified by UFOs is rather miniscule to those that are justified by a belief in Christianity. Belief in God seems to be the one stop shop for opposition.

Disbelief in God seems to be the one stop shop for opposition.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 08:25 PM
Let us not forget that things like alcoholism are far more likely to be genetic, yet society does not tell the children of alcoholics that it's just fine for them to abuse alcohol.

Being a recovering alcoholic myself, I've always wondered at the double standards. They can keep their sins but I had to give mine up ;)

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 08:27 PM
Disbelief in God seems to be the one stop shop for opposition.

No, disbelief in God frees people to pursue their own behaviours within the bounds of society which prescribes behaviour that's harmful to others, but not behaviour that's condemned by a collection of antique screeds.

MrsSmith
05-14-2009, 08:28 PM
Being a recovering alcoholic myself, I've always wondered at the double standards. They can keep their sins but I had to give mine up ;)

:) You don't have a Politically Correct sin there, buster. Only Politically Correct sins are good today. :D

MrsSmith
05-14-2009, 08:29 PM
No, disbelief in God frees people to pursue their own behaviours within the bounds of society which prescribes behaviour that's harmful to others, but not behaviour that's condemned by a collection of antique screeds.

Disbelief in God frees people to try to redefine harmful behavior as sinless and nonharmful. Unfortunately, every behavior so treated eventually works harm on the sinner and those that care for the sinner.

hazlnut
05-14-2009, 08:32 PM
As I explained in a previous post it is more than an interpretation; it is the definition of the word at the time it was first used. It is your use of the modern definition that is causing your misunderstanding.

Gator: I could find other sources that argue a different interpretation, we could get into a classic source quoting war-but what's the point? What would it prove?

Every single syllable of the bible is open to interpretation. I have never heard/read and biblical scholar say that Jesus himself mentioned homosexuality. Homosexuality in the bible is only mentioned as an afterthought, it is given very little importance.

You can interpret it differently, but that's you and your source. Why are you so insistent in arguing something that can never be proven.--short of inventing a time machine. All we have is our best guess, our closest approximation of what it all means.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 08:35 PM
Disbelief in God frees people to try to redefine harmful behavior as sinless and nonharmful. Unfortunately, every behavior so treated eventually works harm on the sinner and those that care for the sinner.

Thanks for the concern. But I'll take my chances and "those that care for" me would laugh at your suggestion. This is the real problem -- believers who worry about the rest of us and in their "worry" think it's their right to impose their moral beliefs on us...


Did you write the book of love,
And do you have faith in God above,
If the Bible tells you so?
Do you believe in rock 'n roll,
Can music save your mortal soul,
And can you teach me how to dance real slow?

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 08:36 PM
Yes, but the number of threads in which behaviour, whether it be opposition to gay marriage, opposition to abortion, opposition to drugs and sexual "immorality," or opposition to certain other political stances, e.g. drugs (lots of "oppositions" there), that are justified by UFOs is rather miniscule to those that are justified by a belief in Christianity. Belief in God seems to be the one stop shop for opposition.

Wilbur where Christianity is concerned. I was using UFOs as a light hearted way of illustrating my point.

As for the belief in God be a one stop shop, believers are expected to adopt a higher moral standard of behavior and when we express views based on that moral foundation we are ridiculed and mocked. We are considered out of touch with society and ignorant. I am not out of touch and I don't believe that I am ignorant. I have logically and rationally reviewed the evidence and I have decided that God is real and that I must do my best to behave in a manner that exalts Him. If, however, my social views seem to want to put constraints on others behaviors that is my right as a citizen of the U.S. and a voter.

There is a self contradiction to people who say that religious people shouldn't force their beliefs on others but in saying that they are forcing their beliefs on the religious. To be true to their own values then they should remain silent. Fortunately for me, my beliefs don't put those constraints on me so by voicing my views I am upholding my principles. Interesting isn't it?

MrsSmith
05-14-2009, 08:41 PM
Thanks for the concern. But I'll take my chances and "those that care for" me would laugh at your suggestion. This is the real problem -- believers who worry about the rest of us and in their "worry" think it's their right to impose their moral beliefs on us...

And you are perfectly free to take your chances. It's a free country because our founders understood that God gave each of us free will. However, "taking your chances" does not give you the power to change your behavior into a non-sin.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 08:47 PM
Gator: I could find other sources that argue a different interpretation, we could get into a classic source quoting war-but what's the point? What would it prove?

Every single syllable of the bible is open to interpretation. I have never heard/read and biblical scholar say that Jesus himself mentioned homosexuality. Homosexuality in the bible is only mentioned as an afterthought, it is given very little importance.

You can interpret it differently, but that's you and your source. Why are you so insistent in arguing something that can never be proven.--short of inventing a time machine. All we have is our best guess, our closest approximation of what it all means.

Jesus never mentioned shooting someone with an AK-47 was wrong either, but he didn't have to. It was covered by several of his commands like don't kill and love your neighbor and pray for your enemy. If you can find other sources then please do so. My source for the New Testament is the Greek from the original texts. Once I have finished mastering Greek I am going to learn Hebrew. Then we can discuss the language of the Old Testament if you'd like.

As for the bible being open to interpretation, that is where the problems begin. Is 'thy shall not murder' open to interpretation? I think not. Murder then and now means to kill outside the scope of protecting oneself or others. The definition is not up for interpretation. The actions a person takes in killing some one may be up for interpretation but not the law itself. Very little of the bible is up for interpretion. Unfortunately how people choose to exemplify the Bible in their lives may be cause for question.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 08:49 PM
Wilbur where Christianity is concerned. I was using UFOs as a light hearted way of illustrating my point.

As for the belief in God be a one stop shop, believers are expected to adopt a higher moral standard of behavior and when we express views based on that moral foundation we are ridiculed and mocked. We are considered out of touch with society and ignorant. I am not out of touch and I don't believe that I am ignorant. I have logically and rationally reviewed the evidence and I have decided that God is real and that I must do my best to behave in a manner that exalts Him. If, however, my social views seem to want to put constraints on others behaviors that is my right as a citizen of the U.S. and a voter.

There is a self contradiction to people who say that religious people shouldn't force their beliefs on others but in saying that they are forcing their beliefs on the religious. To be true to their own values then they should remain silent. Fortunately for me, my beliefs don't put those constraints on me so by voicing my views I am upholding my principles. Interesting isn't it?

A couple of points. First, your use of a "higher moral standard of behavior" prejudices the conversation to start. Rather, in reality, it is not "higher" or "lower," it is merely "your" standard. You consider it "higher" as it conforms to a collection of parables written in the desert during a far off time by a people who were culturally, politically, and intellectually inferior in many ways to their counterparts elsewhere.

Secondly, you repeat the specious argument that to want to impose no obligations or "standards of behaviour" on others is equivalent to wanting to impose your own standards on others. This clearly is not so. For example, a government that is neutral regarding the nature of marriage is not imposing anything on those who believe that marriage is between "one man and one woman." It is simply remaining neutral on the matter. It is the individuals who chose to behave in a different manner who are "imposing" their own standards by doing something you don't think they should.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 08:51 PM
And you are perfectly free to take your chances. It's a free country because our founders understood that God gave each of us free will. However, "taking your chances" does not give you the power to change your behavior into a non-sin.

Fine. I'll live with that as long as you live with a government that doesn't attempt to establish the nature of sin.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 08:52 PM
Thanks for the concern. But I'll take my chances and "those that care for" me would laugh at your suggestion. This is the real problem -- believers who worry about the rest of us and in their "worry" think it's their right to impose their moral beliefs on us...

I do worry about you because I like you, but you are free to live any lifestyle you choose. I would be less then a friend, however, not to warn you of the hazards of swimming when there is a undertow you can't see. After that if you choose to swim you do so at your own risk. But if you started to drown I would still try to help because friends do that for friends.

MrsSmith
05-14-2009, 09:02 PM
A couple of points. First, your use of a "higher moral standard of behavior" prejudices the conversation to start. Rather, in reality, it is not "higher" or "lower," it is merely "your" standard. You consider it "higher" as it conforms to a collection of parables written in the desert during a far off time by a people who were culturally, politically, and intellectually inferior in many ways to their counterparts elsewhere.

Secondly, you repeat the specious argument that to want to impose no obligations or "standards of behaviour" on others is equivalent to wanting to impose your own standards on others. This clearly is not so. For example, a government that is neutral regarding the nature of marriage is not imposing anything on those who believe that marriage is between "one man and one woman." It is simply remaining neutral on the matter. It is the individuals who chose to behave in a different manner who are "imposing" their own standards by doing something you don't think they should.

By that definition, government has no right to interfere when Christians choose not to do specific work for those that behave in a manner with which they do not agree...but government does allow those people to sue Christians that refuse their business. Our government has no right to create hate laws that protect specific classes of people based on the behavior they choose. Our government has no right to impose tax penalties on one non-profit entity for free speech on private property while not imposing similar speech limits on all non-profits. As we can see, those that disbelieve God have worked long and hard to make sure our government is not neutral.

stsinner
05-14-2009, 09:02 PM
but those who say that sort of thing are profoundly ignorant of the persecution homosexuals have had to endure, pretty much everywhere, pretty much all of the time, with few exceptions, all through history.

So yes... in many ways they are on par with the atrocities blacks had to endure before civil rights.

Well, choices have consequences, and blacks didn't choose to be black, but I believe that homosexuals choose their orientation.. I know too many people who were in hetero marriages, even had kids, then divorced and turned into queers..

No amount of legislation or anti-discrimination laws will keep me from teaching my kids right from wrong and the word of God. It's a sick society we live in, and it's only getting sicker with the embracing by our dictatorial government, against the public will, of the homosexual.

For me homosexuality is an aberration of nature. It's obvious with the way the human body is constructed and the way the parts fit and cause procreation that there's one right way for things to be. To do it any other way and consider it normal is simply a mental illness in my opinion. Luckily, I'm consoled by the fact that in every state where it's been put to a vote by the people homosexual marriage has been soundly defeated, so I know the majority of people share my disdain. It's only legal in the states it's legal in because of an out of control government who doesn't adhere to the Constitution and put such matters to a vote by the people.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 09:05 PM
A couple of points. First, your use of a "higher moral standard of behavior" prejudices the conversation to start. Rather, in reality, it is not "higher" or "lower," it is merely "your" standard. You consider it "higher" as it conforms to a collection of parables written in the desert during a far off time by a people who were culturally, politically, and intellectually inferior in many ways to their counterparts elsewhere.

Secondly, you repeat the specious argument that to want to impose no obligations or "standards of behaviour" on others is equivalent to wanting to impose your own standards on others. This clearly is not so. For example, a government that is neutral regarding the nature of marriage is not imposing anything on those who believe that marriage is between "one man and one woman." It is simply remaining neutral on the matter. It is the individuals who chose to behave in a different manner who are "imposing" their own standards by doing something you don't think they should.

I could care less if the Government makes it legal for same-sex people to get married as long as they don't impose those values on the Church. However, if given a chance to vote for or against it I am going to vote against it. I am also morally obligated to vote for representatives who are most closely aligned with my point of view. That is the basis of the representative system of government.

As for one set of morals being no better than another, you should know that morally I can't buy in to that. At the time when I was running around, sleeping with every girl I could talk into the sack and drinking like they here bringing back prohibition tomorrow I knew then that I was living by a lower set of morals than some of my friends. Even before I became a Christian I knew that people lived in varying moral degrees that they found most compatible with their life style. I believe most people feel this way. Your morals are what they are, but I suspect that since you wish to make the argument that one set of morals is no better than the other then deep down you are trying to convince yourself of something by convincing others.

At any rate,you are entitled to live any way that makes you happy. You also can't make the argument that I shouldn't vote my beliefs because my beliefs aren't your beliefs and mine may tread on yours as easily as yours could tread on mine.

hazlnut
05-14-2009, 09:19 PM
Well, choices have consequences, and blacks didn't choose to be black, but I believe that homosexuals choose their orientation.. I know too many people who were in hetero marriages, even had kids, then divorced and turned into queers..

Homosexuals didn't choose their sexual orientation.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 09:31 PM
... Your morals are what they are, but I suspect that since you wish to make the argument that one set of morals is no better than the other then deep down you are trying to convince yourself of something by convincing others. ...

One could make exactly the same argument regarding one who repeatedly states that he/she lives by a "higher moral standard."

megimoo
05-14-2009, 09:40 PM
Homosexuals didn't choose their sexual orientation.
Are you speaking from personnel experience or your own sexual alignment !

MrsSmith
05-14-2009, 09:41 PM
One could make exactly the same argument regarding one who repeatedly states that he/she lives by a "higher moral standard."

Yes, but then "one" would be incorrect.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 09:59 PM
Yes, but then "one" would be incorrect.

There's an adage regarding opinions. However, when one's arguments are based ultimateliy and solely upon the premise "God says so," what can one expect.

FlaGator
05-14-2009, 10:04 PM
One could make exactly the same argument regarding one who repeatedly states that he/she lives by a "higher moral standard."

One could but I don't know how considering that I compare my current standards with my past standards and not with your standards or anyone elses. When I judge myself I don't compare myself others I know, I compare myself to Christ and I never measure up.

megimoo
05-14-2009, 10:09 PM
How 'gay rights' is being sold to America

Editor's note: Following is the highly acclaimed – and to many, shocking – first chapter of WND Managing Editor David Kupelian's blockbuster book, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom."

In it, Kupelian rips the veil off the previously hidden marketing strategies and powerful propaganda techniques used with such stunning success to "sell" Americans on homosexuality and the radical "gay rights" agenda over the last few years – a marketing juggernaut that continues to accelerate daily.

snip

Today, thanks to America's politically correct "gay-friendly" culture, millions of human beings in the grip of this same unnatural sexual compulsion find it much easier to accept – even to wear as a badge of honor.

But they still don't understand it. In fact, they have less desire than ever to understand it – just as the larger society has also lost interest in understanding homosexuality. But sometimes not knowing what you're dealing with can be dangerous. So let's take off the rainbow-colored glasses and objectively explore this phenomenon we call "gay rights."

It grew out of the "sexual liberation" movement of the 1960s. To be precise, the June 11, 1969, "Stonewall riot" – when a group of homosexuals at New York City's Stonewall Inn resisted police commands to disperse – is widely regarded as the birth of the "gay liberation" movement.

This emerging political force made considerable strides during the '70s, most notably in persuading – many say intimidating – the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 into removing homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. But "gay rights" was young, inexperienced, underfunded, and understaffed as political movements go, and the issue received little support from politicians or the nation in general.

"Equality for gays" was not yet a phrase that reverberated in the hearts and minds of Americans. Then came AIDS.

The problem of the plague

Surely, many activists thought, this would be their movement's death knell. For while they were trying to convince the mainstream that homosexuals represented a normal, healthy, alternative lifestyle, along comes a modern plague – horrible, incurable, fatal, and spread primarily by promiscuous homosexual men.

AIDS – originally named GRID (gay-related immunodeficiency disease) until activist homosexuals pressured the medical establishment to switch to the generic acronym AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) – was the ultimate public relations nightmare. It gave society a brand-new reason to fear and shun homosexuals – namely, concern over becoming infected with a nightmarish new disease.

And AIDS did something else. In order for the medical establishment and news media to communicate to the public how the disease was being transmitted, it became necessary to focus publicly on the one thing homosexuals most wanted to downplay – the sometimes-bizarre sexual acts in which they engage and their often astronomically high numbers of sexual partners. (A widely cited 1978 study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Wineburg reported that 43 percent of homosexuals had more than five hundred sex partners during their lifetime.)

In addition, the "silver bullet" medical cure Americans had virtually come to expect, having grown up in the age of miracle drugs like the polio vaccine and penicillin, never materialized. Rather, AIDS experts and public health authorities issued dire warnings about a disease reminiscent of the bubonic plague of the Middle Ages:



By the early years of the next century, we could have lost between 50 and 100 million people worldwide. There’s no question about that. –Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
Ninety percent of the people infected [with HIV] don’t even know it. – Dr. Robert Gallo, co-discoverer of the HIV virus

In many areas, the number of persons affected with the AIDS virus is at least 100 times greater than reported case of AIDS. – Dr. James Curran, director of AIDS and HIV immunology and prevention activities at the Centers for Disease Control

Meanwhile, throughout the '80s and beyond, as AIDS infection and death rates skyrocketed with each passing year, high-profile figures were dying of the disease, including actor Rock Hudson in 1985, ABC News anchor Max Robinson in 1988, and ballet superstar Rudolf Nureyev in 1993.

During this time the public experienced two distinct and widespread reactions to the unfolding AIDS epidemic. One was the natural sympathy evoked by witnessing the terrible suffering and death of AIDS victims.

But the other, if less politically correct, was fear and loathing of homosexuals. After all, there was no way back in those early days of the disease to rule out AIDS transmission via "casual contact" – that is, by means other than sex and intravenous drug use. As prominent Harvard AIDS researcher Dr. William Haseltine warned at the time: "Anyone who tells you categorically that AIDS is not contracted by saliva is not telling you the truth. AIDS may, in fact, be transmissible by tears, saliva, bodily fluids and mosquito bites."
snip




http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46887

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 10:09 PM
One could but I don't know how considering that I compare my current standards with my past standards and not with your standards or anyone elses. When I judge myself I don't compare myself others I know, I compare myself to Christ and I never measure up.

Well, not exactly...


As for the belief in God be a one stop shop, believers are expected to adopt a higher moral standard of behavior and when we express views based on that moral foundation we are ridiculed and mocked.

Clearly this statement is comparing the moral standards of believers with non-believers, not the moral standard of believers with believers.

megimoo
05-14-2009, 10:17 PM
You'd think those who suffered from Same-Sex Attraction were more than 2% of the population for all the noise they're making.
...................................
Borrowed from a past post
St. Paul predicted all this centuries ago. Deny it all you want, the Bible is eternally true.....

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

St. Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapt. 1, v. 20-27

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 10:19 PM
Ah megs, you do have a sense of humor in your posts...


Editor's note: Following is the highly acclaimed – and to many, shocking – first chapter of WND Managing Editor David Kupelian's blockbuster book, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom."


Amazon.com Sales Rank: #14,842 in Books

Another comedic farce brought to you from WorldNutDaily! :D

megimoo
05-14-2009, 10:24 PM
Ah megs, you do have a sense of humor in your posts...





Another comedic farce brought to you from WorldNutDaily! :DAh good old CW back in disguise this time.That old Blackberry of yours must be smoking about now .

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 10:28 PM
That old Blackberry of yours must be smoking about now .

Well, I'm not currently logged in from my blackberry, although I certainly can (and have). Since I'm a touch typist, however, it does cramp my style a bit. However, it's useful when one is sitting in a bar watching the Gunners and pretending to be working. E-mails can fly back and forth just as if one is in front of a computer. :D

stsinner
05-14-2009, 10:31 PM
Homosexuals didn't choose their sexual orientation.

You have your opinion, and I have mine.

megimoo
05-14-2009, 10:58 PM
The Gay Gene? by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1
Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D. has practiced psychoanalysis for more than nineteen years, and psychiatry for more than ten. He is a former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University, a past president of the C.G. Jung Foundation, and a former William James Lecturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard University. He holds degrees from MIT, the University of Texas, and Harvard University. He is the author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Books, 1996). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.
-Abraham Lincoln
On July 15, 1993, National Public Radio (NPR) made a dramatic announcement on stations across the country: Was a team of scientists at the National Institutes of Health on the trail of a gene that causes homosexuality? Their report would be published the next day in Science, one of the two most prestigious scientific research journals in the world.[1]

The discussion that followed explained for the listening public the implications of these findings for social attitudes toward homosexuality and for public policy concerning it. Science was on the verge of proving what many had long argued: that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable-a normal and commonplace variant of human nature. In the light of these findings, surely only the bigoted or ignorant could condemn it in any way.

Shortly after the announcement, amidst a well-orchestrated blizzard of press discussions, there ensued the watershed legal battle over "Proposition 2" in Colorado. (This popularly enacted legislation precluded making sexual orientation the basis of "privileged class" minority status, a status conferred previously only on the basis of immutable factors such as race.)

Among the many crucial issues raised by the legislation was the question as to whether homosexuality was indeed normal, innate and unchangeable. One prominent researcher testified to the court, "I am 99.5% certain that homosexuality is genetic." But this personal opinion was widely misunderstood as "homosexuality is 99.5% genetic," implying that research had demonstrated this. Certainly, that was the message promulgated by NPR's report on the recent research, and by all the discussions that followed.
snip

Of course, just near the end of the NPR discussion, certain necessary caveats were fleetingly added. But only an expert knew what they meant- that the research actually showed nothing whatever in the way of what was being discussed. The vast majority of listeners would think that homosexuality had been all but conclusively proven to be "genetic." But the real question is whether or not there is such a "gay gene."

In fact, there is not, and the research being promoted as proving that there is provides no supporting evidence. How can this be? In order to understand what is really going on, one needs to understand some little- known features of the emerging study of behavioral genetics (much subtler than the genetics of simple, "Mendelian" traits such as eye color).

When it comes to questions of the genetics of any behavior-homosexuality included-all of the following statements are likely to be at least roughly true:


Such and such a behavior "is genetic";
There are no genes that produce the behavior;
The genes associated with the behavior are found on such and such a chromosome;
The behavior is significantly heritable;
The behavior is not inherited.
The scientific distinctions that make these seeming contradictions perfectly reasonable and consistent seem completely misunderstood by the media who report on them.
For example, in response to the "gay gene" research, the Wall Street Journal headlined their report (which appeared the next day), "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene."[2] A subheading of the Journal article stated, "Normal Variation"-leaving the casual reader with the impression that the research led to this conclusion. It did not, nor could it have. The subhead alluded to nothing more than the chief researcher's personal, unsubstantiated opinion that homosexuality, as he put it, "is a normal variant of human behavior." Even the New York Times, in its more moderate front-page article, "Report Suggests Homosexuality is Linked to Genes," noted that other researchers warned against over-interpreting the work, "or taking it to mean anything as simplistic as that the 'gay gene' had been found."

At end of the Wall Street Journal article, at the bottom of the last paragraph on the last page deep within the paper, a prominent geneticist was quoted for his reactions to the research. He observed that "the gene...may be involved in something other than sexual behavior. For example, it may be that the supposed gene is only 'associated' with homosexuality, rather than a 'cause' of it."

This rather cryptic comment would be most difficult to understand without the needed scientific background. Yet it is the most critical distinction in the entire article; indeed, it renders the findings almost entirely worthless. Why bury and fail to explain what it means? Perhaps the motives were innocent, but in fact, the belief that homosexuality is "biological" or "genetic" causes people to develop more positive attitudes toward it. They need not have the foggiest understanding of what "biological" or "genetic" really mean in order to change their view:that would stick in the public mind as the final truth about
......................................

Teetop
05-14-2009, 11:00 PM
Well, I'm not currently logged in from my blackberry, although I certainly can (and have). Since I'm a touch typist, however, it does cramp my style a bit. However, it's useful when one is sitting in a bar watching the Gunners and pretending to be working. E-mails can fly back and forth just as if one is in front of a computer. :D

What is your DUmmie nickname? What a moron.

This is a liberal, pure and simple.

They act important, online, answering emails and not doing a thing, except wasting time. Looking good!

Moron pegged the loser pretty well.

Look important!

Don't produce a thing, just look the part!

I am important, damn it!


Hear me roar1


I work for a company where I produce, numbers. I produce numbers this company is impressed with. Even in this "BusHitler economy". I am producing......

Are you?

megimoo
05-14-2009, 11:09 PM
snip
Part 2
In a study105 volunteer[s]... were exposed to one of three... conditions.... [T]he experimental group read a summary... emphasizing a biological component of homosexual orientation.... [O]ne control group read a summary... focusing on the absence of hormonal differences between homosexual and heterosexual men. [A]nother control group w[as] not exposed to either article.... As predicted, subjects in the experimental group had significantly lower[3] scores [more positive attitudes toward homosexuals] than subjects in the control groups.[4]
And:

Analysis indicated that subjects who believed that homosexuals are "born that way" held significantly more positive attitudes toward homosexuals than subjects who believed that homosexuals "choose to be that way" and/or "learn to be that way."[5]
What was actually going in the study the media was trumpeting? Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a kind of behavioral genetics study now becoming widespread-the so-called "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family and then look to see whether there is a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and if that variant is more frequent in the family members who have the trait.
To the uninitiated, a positive finding ("correlation" or "association" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait) is taken to mean that the trait "is genetic"-that is, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations. We will see shortly just how this is can be so. The most important take-home messages will be these:

(1) All the research that has been done on homosexuality has been selectively trumpeted through the press in carefully crafted form in order to shape public opinion-hence public policy-in predictable ways. The research itself means almost nothing.

(2) The research projects that would truly mean something are scarcely being done because they would all explicitly or tacitly lead to but one end highly undesirable to activists: a method or methods for preventing homosexuality or changing it with ever-increasing efficacy; and to one conclusion: homosexuality per se is not inherited.

(3) Most of the research has been hastily and often sloppily done-but this point is a distraction. Even were it superb, the findings would still mean almost nothing.

(4) To whatever extent this research has been good enough to generate valid conclusions at all, these conclusions are precisely the opposite of what is claimed in the press.

Before we talk about specifics, here is what serious scientists think about the recent behavior-caused-by-genes research. From Science, 1994:


Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."[6]
A scientist at Washington University School of Medicine calculated what would be required for such a replication. He:

...projected that if the trait [in question] was 50% heritable... detecting [just] one of [its] genes would require studying 175 families-that is, almost 2000 people.[7 ] Replicati[on] would require studying 781 families-another 8000 people.... [E]ach additional gene (for a polygenic trait), researchers would need... the whole business again. "Suddenly you're talking about tens of thousands of people and years of work and millions of dollars."[8]
Nothing even remotely close to this has been done with respect to homosexuality.
Using arguable-at-best methods, two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the odds that the other one is, too, are less than 50% (the study examined a few dozens of pairs). On this basis, they argue that "homosexuality is genetic." British researchers generated comparable results in a similar study. Their conclusion? The surprisingly low odds that both twins were homosexual:


...confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation for the development of sexual orientation.[9]
Two Columbia University researchers (who have published the most comprehensive research summary on the subject to date) note the unexpectedly:

... large proportion of monozygotic twins who [did not share] homosexuality despite sharing not only their genes but also their prenatal and familial environments.[10] The... [50% odds]... for homosexuality among the identical twins could be entirely accounted for by the increased similarity of their developmental experiences. In our opinion, the major finding of that study is that 48 percent of identical twins who were reared together [and where at least one was homosexual] were discordant for sexual orientation.[11]
Two other genetics researchers (one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard) comment:

... recent studies seeking a genetic basis for homosexuality suggest that... we may be in for a new molecular phrenology, rather than true scientific progress and insight into behavior.
While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.[12 ]
The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science notes:

...the growing understanding that the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and "intelligence genes" touted in the popular press. Indeed, renewed appreciation of environmental factors is one of the chief effects of the increased belief in genetics' effects on behavior [my emphasis]. The same data that show the effects of genes also point to the enormous influence of non-genetic factors.[13]
The director of the Center for Developmental and Health Genetics at Pennsylvania State University comments:

Research into heritability is the best demonstration I know of the importance of the environment.
(Note the term "heritability;" we will be returning to it in detail as it lies at the heart of much confusion).
With regard to the work announced by NPR, genetics researchers from Yale, Columbia and Louisiana State Universities noted that:


Much of the discussion of this finding [of a purported gene locus for homosexuality] has focused on its social and political ramifications. [But] inconsistencies... suggest that this finding should be interpreted cautiously....
The results are not consistent with any genetic model....neither of these differences [between homosexuality in maternal versus paternal uncles or cousins] is statistically significant....small sample sizes make these data compatible with a range of... hypotheses.
[T]he... data... present no consistent support for the... results.[14]
By contrast to their public policy statements, the researchers responded carefully as follows:


....................................

megimoo
05-14-2009, 11:16 PM
part 3

We did not say that [the chromosome segment under study] "underlies" sexuality, only that it contributes to it in some families. Nor have we said that [it] represents a "major" gene, only that its influence is statistically detectable in the population that we studied.[15]

Ignoring possible flaws in the research, have the researchers actually pointed to this more modest claim with any degree of certainty? In fact, they have not-as they themselves acknowledge, but in language that will surely evade general understanding-and that will continue to be avoided by the press:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a non-Mendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.[16]
English translation: "It is not possible to know what the findings mean, if anything, since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited the way eye-color is." Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers properly acknowledge what every serious researcher knows, but the public does not.

Complex behavioral traits are the product of multiple genetic and environmental antecedents, with 'environment' meaning not only the social environment but also such factors as the 'flux of hormones during development, whether you were lying on your right or left side in the womb and a whole parade of other things'...the relationships among genes and environment probably have a somewhat different effect on someone in Salt lake City than if that person were growing up in New York City.[17]
English translation: "You're more likely to become gay growing up in Manhattan than in Utah among Mormons and Christian fundamentalists, even if everything else is the same, including genes."
Unfortunately, anyone who is so disposed can readily offer the public partial truths which are seriously misleading. This is so only in part because of an easily led or poorly educated press. The major reason is really that the ideas being cooked beyond recognition once they leave the labs are inherently complex, even if originally formulated and presented properly. There are no "lite," sound-bite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so little-and will continue to mean little even should the quality of the research methods improve-so long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.

There are really only two major principles that need to be carefully assimilated in order to see through public relations distortions to the actual meaning of recent research. They are as follows:


Heritable does not mean inherited.
Meaningful genetics research identifies and then focuses on traits that are directly inherited. One prominent genetics researcher (discussing a matter unrelated to homosexuality, but equally frustrated with the bad science reporting) flatly calls the question of heritability "trivial."

Heritable Does Not Mean Inherited
Heritability studies can be done on almost any human trait- physical, behavioral, emotional, etc.-and will show positive results. That is, almost every human characteristic you can think of is in significant measure heritable (thus discussing it is "trivial"). But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited the way simple physiological traits are (e.g., eye color). Inherited means "determined directly by genes," with little or no way of changing the trait by choice, or by preventing it, or by modifying the environment in which the trait has emerged (or is more likely to emerge).

Conclusion: Here, then is a final summary, in the form of a dialogue.

Isn't homosexuality heritable? Yes, significantly.
So it is inherited? No, it is not.

I'm confused. Isn't there is a "genetic component" to homosexuality?
Yes, but "component" is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. This will not make sense unless you understand what, and how little, "linkage" and "association" really means.

What about all the evidence that shows that homosexuality "is genetic"?
There is not any, and none of the research itself claims there is; only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do-when speaking in sound bites to the public.

But isn't homosexuality "biologically in the brain"?
Of course it is. So is just about everything else. I'll bet people who pray regularly have certain enlarged portions of their brains!

So doesn't that mean that homosexuality is "innate"?
No more than prayer is. The brain changes with use or nonuse as much as muscles do-a good deal more, in fact. We just do not usually see it happening.

But doesn't homosexuality run in families?
Yes.
So you get it from your parents, right?
You get viruses from your parents, too, and some bad habits. Not everything that is familial is innate or genetic.

But it just seems to make sense. From the people I know there's a type-it's got to be inherited-that runs in families and a lot of these people are gay, right?
That is what associated traits are-but what exactly is the associated trait-or traits-you are detecting? If there is one thing the research confirms, it is that it is not "gayness" itself. That is why these traits are sometimes in evidence at a very early age, long before sexuality is shaped.

So what are these traits?
An important question, indeed. Science is being seriously obstructed in its effort to answer that question. If we were allowed- encouraged-to answer it, we would soon develop better ideas on what homosexuality is and how to change, or better, prevent it. We would know who was at greater risk for becoming homosexual and what environments- family or societal-foster it. As one prominent gay activist researcher implied, all genetic things being equal, it is a whole lot easier to become "gay" in New York than in Utah. So who do you think would benefit most from that kind of research?

Well, what traits do you guess are "associated," as you put it, with homosexuality?
May I speculate, perhaps wildly? That is how scientific hypotheses are first generated. The important thing is not to avoid ideas that prove wrong, just not to cling to them if they do.

Okay, go ahead, speculate.
Intelligence, anxiety, sensitivity, aesthetic abilities, taste. You know, all the stereotypes.
But where do these traits come from? Aren't they inherited?

We do not know yet. Some may be. Or rather, we do not know how much is inherited, and which elements are direct and which merely further associated and linked with other yet more fundamental traits. But you are getting the picture. That is how the research ought to proceed. It is not necessarily that the traits that facilitate homosexuality are themselves bad; perhaps many are gifts. Athleticism is a generally good thing, and we think highly of people who satisfy their athletic impulses as, say, outstanding BBPs. Not so the fellow who merely becomes a thug."..... BBP=BasketBall Players !
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html[/SIZE][/SIZE]

wilbur
05-15-2009, 02:02 AM
Keep spamming the propaganda megs, its all you seem to be good for.

wilbur
05-15-2009, 02:07 AM
Well, choices have consequences, and blacks didn't choose to be black, but I believe that homosexuals choose their orientation.. I know too many people who were in hetero marriages, even had kids, then divorced and turned into queers..


Gee, that couldnt possibly be due to confusion and enormous amounts of social pressure... millions of people chanting that being gay is abnormal, sinful, evil, wrong, unnatural, and on and on... no, none of that could possibly cause one to try and live contrary to their natural feelings... it should be quite a testament to the power of their feelings that they even come out at all, eventually, despite all the negative consequences that they generally have to face.



No amount of legislation or anti-discrimination laws will keep me from teaching my kids right from wrong and the word of God. It's a sick society we live in, and it's only getting sicker with the embracing by our dictatorial government, against the public will, of the homosexual.


It is your right to be prejudiced... can't argue with that.. but its my right to call you a small minded fool, as well.



For me homosexuality is an aberration of nature. It's obvious with the way the human body is constructed and the way the parts fit and cause procreation that there's one right way for things to be. To do it any other way and consider it normal is simply a mental illness in my opinion. Luckily, I'm consoled by the fact that in every state where it's been put to a vote by the people homosexual marriage has been soundly defeated, so I know the majority of people share my disdain. It's only legal in the states it's legal in because of an out of control government who doesn't adhere to the Constitution and put such matters to a vote by the people.

And it will be legal in many more before its over... eventually probably the entire nation. Hopefully you'll move out of the country when that happens! I'll wave goodbye.

wilbur
05-15-2009, 02:28 AM
Wilbur where Christianity is concerned. I was using UFOs as a light hearted way of illustrating my point.


But UFO belief, and whatever worldview accompanies UFO belief isnt the one defining the terms of discussion around here. If most people here were coming from a Muslim perspective, I'd probably have a lot more to say about Islam.

I don't think most here fully appreciate the ways in which the Judeo-Christian worldview permeates their arguments and their beliefs, even when they don't realize it. You and others here often make the mistake of trying to couch some variant of a religious argument in secular vernacular... and don't even realize it... such as these arguments about homosexuality being "contrary to nature". The worldview defines peoples thought processes at such a level that don't even realize they are making religious arguments.

Another example struck me the other day when Odysseus said something along the lines of "conservatives understand that human nature needs to be controlled"... an overtly Judeo-Christian allusion to original sin, and I don't even think he was conscious of this.. though I could be wrong. The worldview has permeated most on such a deep level, that its taken for granted, even for those who arent religious... and its mostly invisible to those who are afflicted by it. But for someone who doesnt share that worldview, its as plain as day. And when someone says a statement like that, it wouldn't even occur to most to be at all skeptical of it... a testament to the prevalence of the worldview. But I certainly don't agree with it.. and to illustrate why its wrong, I would mostly likely have to bring up religion.... the ultimate source of such a belief.

When I see this happening, I try to draw awareness to it, and that often means bringing up religion.. and around here, that usually means Christianity.



As for the belief in God be a one stop shop, believers are expected to adopt a higher moral standard of behavior and when we express views based on that moral foundation we are ridiculed and mocked.
We are considered out of touch with society and ignorant. I am not out of touch and I don't believe that I am ignorant. I have logically and rationally reviewed the evidence and I have decided that God is real and that I must do my best to behave in a manner that exalts Him. If, however, my social views seem to want to put constraints on others behaviors that is my right as a citizen of the U.S. and a voter.


Only if your "constraints" are copacetic with the constitution and are within the limited powers of government to enforce. But if we take "equal rights" seriously at all...



There is a self contradiction to people who say that religious people shouldn't force their beliefs on others but in saying that they are forcing their beliefs on the religious. To be true to their own values then they should remain silent. Fortunately for me, my beliefs don't put those constraints on me so by voicing my views I am upholding my principles. Interesting isn't it?

Well, gee... I might be forcing my beliefs upon another, if I tell some little aspiring Hitler child that we won't let him fulfill his master plans for world domination even though he believes he would be a great tyrant... but thats fine with me.

stsinner
05-15-2009, 02:36 AM
Gee, that couldnt possibly be due to confusion and enormous amounts of social pressure... millions of people chanting that being gay is abnormal, sinful, evil, wrong, unnatural, and on and on... no, none of that could possibly cause one to try and live contrary to their natural feelings... it should be quite a testament to the power of their feelings that they even come out at all, eventually, despite all the negative consequences that they generally have to face.



It is your right to be prejudiced... can't argue with that.. but its my right to call you a small minded fool, as well.



And it will be legal in many more before its over... eventually probably the entire nation. Hopefully you'll move out of the country when that happens! I'll wave goodbye.

You speak as if you have this disorder... It's easy to call people names like small-minded and fool in order to try to stifle the conversation, but that doesn't work with me.. Homosexuals are deficient, and not only do they practice sodomy and debauchery, they have to get in our faces instead of just leaving well-enough alone and being happy with civil unions and equal rights. People would probably be much more tolerant if you homosexuals just existed quietly among us, instead of shoving the stupid rainbow stickers in our faces like we give a shit that you're a queer and attacking us for us not wanting you to ruin our most sacred institution. Those of us who are normal don't seem to proclaim it to the world, so why do you need to advertise your sickness?

How about this:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m247/brassmonkey71/Straight.jpg

Luckily, the numbers of homosexuals is still small, but increasingly annoying and, therefore, meeting increasing resistance.

It's not bigotry to have morals and follow the teachings of your religion. What's sick is to act like what's right and wrong is subjective and open to interpretation based on who's offended and who's not.. I'm offended by your offense at my being normal and advocating on behalf of other normal people.

wilbur
05-15-2009, 02:42 AM
You speak as if you have this disorder... It's easy to call people names like small-minded and fool in order to try to stifle the conversation, but that doesn't work with me.. Homosexuals are deficient, and not only do they practice sodomy and debauchery, they have to get in our faces instead of just leaving well-enough alone and being happy with civil unions and equal rights.

Not gay... but I'm sure plenty of people here think I am. But I don't care... If I were, the only shameful thing would be you and others behavior, not me.




People would probably be much more tolerant if you homosexuals just existed quietly among us, instead of shoving the stupid rainbow stickers in our cars like we give a shit that you're a queer and attacking us for us not wanting you to ruin our most sacred institution. Luckily, the numbers are still small, but increasingly annoying and, therefore, meeting increasing resistance.


If they werent in peoples faces, theyd still be beaten, lynched, fired from their jobs, discriminated against, ignored by the judicial system and law enforcement more often than not... like it has been for most of US history...




It's not bigotry to have morals and follow the teachings of your religion. What's sick is to act like what's right and wrong is subjective and open to interpretation based on who's offended and who's not.. I'm offended by your offense of my being normal and advocating on behalf of other normal people.

Yes, it is, in this instance. Just because something is religious, doesnt mean its not bigoted. After all, Fred Phelps is just acting on his religious beliefs too..

I don't think right and wrong is subjective. Homosexuality is objectively moral.

Lager
05-15-2009, 02:50 AM
Wilbur, do you believe there should be affirmative action for homosexuals? In other words, should schools and businesses, sports teams and even politicians strive to get a larger representation of gays in their ranks, to make up for the years of discrimination?

wilbur
05-15-2009, 02:57 AM
Wilbur, do you believe there should be affirmative action for homosexuals? In other words, should schools and businesses, sports teams and even politicians strive to get a larger representation of gays in their ranks, to make up for the years of discrimination?

I'm not a real big supporter of affirmative action for anyone, really... for any 'protected status'.

I would probably be more supportive of affirmative action if it discarded race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and the like and focused purely on economic status, in order to create a reasonable pathway out of the poverty cycle for those who need it.

Maybe it would be justified, if we had say an extremely high unemployment rate for homosexuals... and we determined the most likely reason was due to discrimination... then we could say something drastic is needed.

Rockntractor
05-15-2009, 03:02 AM
I would probably be more supportive of affirmative action if it discarded race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and the like and focused purely on economic status, in order to create a reasonable pathway out of the poverty cycle for those who need it.
That is a better system than the one we are using.

FlaGator
05-15-2009, 06:28 AM
Gee, that couldnt possibly be due to confusion and enormous amounts of social pressure... millions of people chanting that being gay is abnormal, sinful, evil, wrong, unnatural, and on and on... no, none of that could possibly cause one to try and live contrary to their natural feelings... it should be quite a testament to the power of their feelings that they even come out at all, eventually, despite all the negative consequences that they generally have to face.




Millions of people said that smoking a drinking was bad for me and wrong but it didn't induce me to not do those things. I still chose to drink and smoke because my I wanted to. My natural desires (as bad as they were for me) came out. Thats quite a testament to the power of desire when face with making a bad choice.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 07:09 AM
What is your DUmmie nickname? What a moron.

This is a liberal, pure and simple.

They act important, online, answering emails and not doing a thing, except wasting time. Looking good!

Moron pegged the loser pretty well.

Look important!

Don't produce a thing, just look the part!

I am important, damn it!

Hear me roar1

I work for a company where I produce, numbers. I produce numbers this company is impressed with. Even in this "BusHitler economy". I am producing......

Are you?

There. Feel better now? I'm sure you produce some good stuff in your little job. We each contribute to society in our own way, even sanitation engineers.

Odysseus
05-15-2009, 12:32 PM
I would probably be more supportive of affirmative action if it discarded race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and the like and focused purely on economic status, in order to create a reasonable pathway out of the poverty cycle for those who need it.

That's pretty much what the Chinese did under Mao. What you end up with is a lot of guys who didn't meet the qualifications for schooling because they were semi-literate peasant farmers suddenly getting pushed into professional schools and failing miserably. The "barefoot doctor" program was one of these, where peasants were given some basic medical instruction and sent out into the hinterlands to provide medical service. The results were substantially less than adequate.

That's an extreme example, of course, but ultimately, if you make any criteria other than being able to do the job that you're applying for, you end up with people who can't do the job being promoted over those who can.

wilbur
05-15-2009, 01:22 PM
That's pretty much what the Chinese did under Mao. What you end up with is a lot of guys who didn't meet the qualifications for schooling because they were semi-literate peasant farmers suddenly getting pushed into professional schools and failing miserably. The "barefoot doctor" program was one of these, where peasants were given some basic medical instruction and sent out into the hinterlands to provide medical service. The results were substantially less than adequate.

That's an extreme example, of course, but ultimately, if you make any criteria other than being able to do the job that you're applying for, you end up with people who can't do the job being promoted over those who can.

Nothing about affirmative action, at least my version, would stipulate that one must hire someone less qualified for a position. In fact, it wouldn't have much of anything to say about hiring practices.

Affirmative action is meant to combat structural discrimination... which in the end, is an admirable, if only moderately realistically fixable, goal. And structural discrimination is really intrinsic to the school system, more than any other place that I can see.. and thats the only area I would really be concerned with "fixing" at best we can with any affirmative action laws.

Odysseus
05-15-2009, 05:35 PM
Nothing about affirmative action, at least my version, would stipulate that one must hire someone less qualified for a position. In fact, it wouldn't have much of anything to say about hiring practices.

Affirmative action is meant to combat structural discrimination... which in the end, is an admirable, if only moderately realistically fixable, goal. And structural discrimination is really intrinsic to the school system, more than any other place that I can see.. and thats the only area I would really be concerned with "fixing" at best we can with any affirmative action laws.

Then you've completely redefined affirmative action into something that it isn't. The whole point of affirmative action is to promote people based on who they are, not based on how well they've done or how hard they've worked. The classic affirmative action case was the daughter of a cop who applied to the University of Michigan law school and was turned down, and then found out that applicants with lower GPAs and SATs were admitted because they were minorities. The school didn't even try to make the case that they'd been discriminated against, they just decided that diversity was a worthy enough goal that it justified excluding meritorious applicants.

BTW, whenever anyone tries to pin down your position on the liberal/conservative meter, you show better footwork than Nancy Pelosi during her press conference yesterday. Exactly where do you stand on affirmative action as it's practiced now?

CueSi
05-16-2009, 02:28 PM
My take on it. . .It's not entirely genetic. It's a hormonal imbalance that can be aggravated by life experiences and emotional/psychological-psychosocial stress. To say it's a choice or it's a genetic sentence is just... narrow and doesn't take into account alot of other factors.

Sexuality is not black or white. It's a continuum. As much as Kinsey's research was narrow, questionable and incomplete. . .his scale of sexuality is quite useful and can tell us if nothing else that gay and straight are the extremes... I think of it as a. . .skinnier-than-normal bell curve. 75% of the population falls on either end of the extreme poles, while a good 25% sits in the middle, fluxing between the two sides. . .That's where you get your ex-gays, cross dressers, some of the transgendered (Because there are "straight" and "gay" transgendered people...prolly another topic) , "regretrosexuals" (a.k.a, LUGs or BUGs/the secular cousin of the ex-gay) and . . .bisexuals.

It's not a choice, but it's not black and white.

There. No one's happy, and that's the way it should be. :D

And people who compare it to race. . .FUCK YOU! If you're gay and you keep saying that, I hope that everyone gets the right to civil union but YOU. <_< And Perez Hilton.

~QC

megimoo
05-16-2009, 03:19 PM
My take on it. . .It's not entirely genetic. It's a hormonal imbalance that can be aggravated by life experiences and emotional/psychological-psychosocial stress. To say it's a choice or it's a genetic sentence is just... narrow and doesn't take into account alot of other factors.

Sexuality is not black or white. It's a continuum. As much as Kinsey's research was narrow, questionable and incomplete. . .his scale of sexuality is quite useful and can tell us if nothing else that gay and straight are the extremes... I think of it as a. . .skinnier-than-normal bell curve. 75% of the population falls on either end of the extreme poles, while a good 25% sits in the middle, fluxing between the two sides. . .That's where you get your ex-gays, cross dressers, some of the transgendered (Because there are "straight" and "gay" transgendered people...prolly another topic) , "regretrosexuals" (a.k.a, LUGs or BUGs/the secular cousin of the ex-gay) and . . .bisexuals.

It's not a choice, but it's not black and white.

There. No one's happy, and that's the way it should be. :D

And people who compare it to race. . .FUCK YOU! If you're gay and you keep saying that, I hope that everyone gets the right to civil union but YOU. <_< And Perez Hilton.

~QCKinsery expertise was in biologist and and as a professor of entomology and zoology,bugs . He had no credentials in Psychology or Psychiatry or in human sexuality nor was he a medical doctor .

He made it up as he went along .When they use statistical analysis to make their case you know that they are 'reaching' !His surveys are all over the place and he pulled unrelated data together to make the data fit his conclusions .

Most of his so called data is at best a collection of old wives tales about their sex lives from those he interviewed .

Lanie
05-16-2009, 03:29 PM
If I was a lesbian, I'd applaud this new stance. After all, if there was a "gay gene", I'd be aware that most of my pro-choice sisters would be clamoring for a prenatal test and then would act accordingly. If women are willing to abort in order to get the right sex, they would have little trouble aborting to get the right sexual inclination.

That gives me a horrible thread idea, but I'm not going to do it. lol. I don't care if it is biological or a choice.

CueSi
05-16-2009, 04:04 PM
Kinsery expertise was in biologist and and as a professor of entomology and zoology,bugs . He had no credentials in Psychology or Psychiatry or in human sexuality nor was he a medical doctor .

He made it up as he went along .When they use statistical analysis to make their case you know that they are 'reaching' !His surveys are all over the place and he pulled unrelated data together to make the data fit his conclusions .

Most of his so called data is at best a collection of old wives tales about their sex lives from those he interviewed .

If you read my entire sentence on Kinsey, I did acknowledge that his research was not perfect.

How does that discount the Kinsey scale, pray tell?

Or the Klein Grid, for that matter. . .another scale that marks human sexuality.

~QC

megimoo
05-16-2009, 07:14 PM
If you read my entire sentence on Kinsey, I did acknowledge that his research was not perfect.

How does that discount the Kinsey scale, pray tell?

Or the Klein Grid, for that matter. . .another scale that marks human sexuality.

~QC
He isn't perfect ?The understatement of the year. Even you would be more credible if you were lecturing on Neutron Spin in a Nuclear Reaction !Kinsey was a charlatan without credentials .He was basically conducting a survey much like a political pollster would and calling those who's answers interested him in for an interview.

The APA has never quoted him or acknowledged his work.To me if normal sexual development is disrupted in childhood by what ever means it may lead to sexual developmental aberrations .If a child is molested by a relative or parent the child's mind could internalize the guilt as how could my father,mother or uncle who loves me do this to me unless there is something wrong with me !The guilt builds over time unless it is resolved.suppressed emotions always escape in some other manifestation leading to incomplete emotional development .Homosexuality has to be due to an aborted emotional sexual developmental flaw !

CueSi
05-16-2009, 08:49 PM
He isn't perfect ?The understatement of the year. Even you would be more credible if you were lecturing on Neutron Spin in a Nuclear Reaction !Kinsey was a charlatan without credentials .He was basically conducting a survey much like a political pollster would and calling those who's answers interested him in for an interview.

The APA has never quoted him or acknowledged his work.To me if normal sexual development is disrupted in childhood by what ever means it may lead to sexual developmental aberrations .If a child is molested by a relative or parent the child's mind could internalize the guilt as how could my father,mother or uncle who loves me do this to me unless there is something wrong with me !The guilt builds over time unless it is resolved.suppressed emotions always escape in some other manifestation leading to incomplete emotional development .Homosexuality has to be due to an aborted emotional sexual developmental flaw !

What does that have to do with his scale on sexuality, which is still used by sexologists today and was the point of my post (sexuality as fluid, with multiple causes...making ascribing it as a 'flaw' as simplistic).

I noticed you didn't try to tear down the Klein Grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_Grid). Is it because you don't have anything to C&P on that? ;)

Like the Wiki said, there are multiple theories ,but to place it on just one cause, whether solely genetic or solely external shows that you really don't understand how human behavior works, and are selectively cutting and pasting and only seeing what you agree with and tossing out what you don't.


And here's the Klein Grid. Everyone can play along. (http://www.kleingridonline.com/)

~QC

megimoo
05-17-2009, 11:23 AM
What does that have to do with his scale on sexuality, which is still used by sexologists today and was the point of my post (sexuality as fluid, with multiple causes...making ascribing it as a 'flaw' as simplistic).

I noticed you didn't try to tear down the Klein Grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_Grid). Is it because you don't have anything to C&P on that? ;)

Like the Wiki said, there are multiple theories ,but to place it on just one cause, whether solely genetic or solely external shows that you really don't understand how human behavior works, and are selectively cutting and pasting and only seeing what you agree with and tossing out what you don't.


And here's the Klein Grid. Everyone can play along. (http://www.kleingridonline.com/)

~QC
Some people are meant to be gay - they are born gay.

Nothing has been published and gained wide acceptance in the scientific and medical community to indicate that homosexuality is primarily genetic or otherwise prenatally determined.

One of the most widely recognized authorities on the subject is John W. Money. Ph.D., a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and Director of the Psychohormonal Research Institute. In an article in 'Perspectives in Human Sexuality', he states "Whatever may be the possible unlearned assistance from constitutional sources, the child's psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the hormonal system or the nervous system at birth."

A psychiatrist who has written and spoken widely on the subject of homosexuality, Dr. Charles W. Socarides, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, says this: "Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of sexual object. Such an object choice is learned, acquired behaviour; there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex."

Finally, we have the opinions of Masters and Johnson, the most widely known authorities in the field of human sexual behaviour. In one of their books they write: "The genetic theory of the homosexual has been generally discarded today. Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies."
http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/homosexualityandthetruthp37.php

megimoo
05-17-2009, 11:59 AM
HOW THE APA CAME TO CHANGE ITS VIEW ON HOMOSEXUALITY:


Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.


Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud and Healthy."

Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.

The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section "302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.

After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.

According to Satinover, "How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer's apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth."

megimoo
05-17-2009, 12:28 PM
My take on it. . .It's not entirely genetic. It's a hormonal imbalance that can be aggravated by life experiences and emotional/psychological-psychosocial stress. To say it's a choice or it's a genetic sentence is just... narrow and doesn't take into account alot of other factors.

Sexuality is not black or white. It's a continuum. As much as Kinsey's research was narrow, questionable and incomplete. . .his scale of sexuality is quite useful and can tell us if nothing else that gay and straight are the extremes... I think of it as a. . .skinnier-than-normal bell curve. 75% of the population falls on either end of the extreme poles, while a good 25% sits in the middle, fluxing between the two sides. . .That's where you get your ex-gays, cross dressers, some of the transgendered (Because there are "straight" and "gay" transgendered people...prolly another topic) , "regretrosexuals" (a.k.a, LUGs or BUGs/the secular cousin of the ex-gay) and . . .bisexuals.

It's not a choice, but it's not black and white.

There. No one's happy, and that's the way it should be. :D

And people who compare it to race. . .FUCK YOU! If you're gay and you keep saying that, I hope that everyone gets the right to civil union but YOU. <_< And Perez Hilton.

~QC
I take it you don't care for any comparison between homosexuality's struggle and the black civil rights movement ?