|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,812
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,812 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
I distictly remember my vows including "we are gathered here together UNDER GOD"..fairly typical in a Christian wedding. Not all weddings are Christian but short of the quick trip to Vegas or a Justice of the peace a religious reference is typical.
Gay weddings have those same things too, ya know.
There's lots of Christian homosexuals; very devout ones some of them. And they can get married in a great many churches (and no, I'm not talking about some little tiny made-up ones either).
Quote:
The lack of religion in marriage is not solely responsible for the degradation of the insitution but may be a component. Basic Religious values tend to be a good thing in marriage.
What, do you think gays don't have religious values?
etc.etc.etc.........................blah blah...etc.
You have misunderstood my posts.
Obviously there are plenty of Christian homosexuals, and IMO it is not logical to say it a contradiction. Despite some literal interpretaion of biblical text, as I said, homosexuality is genetic (ie..the way God designed the DNA) and it is not reasonable to preclude worship of his/her creator or a creator bias against his own creation!. I was refering to a general downgrading of oaths before God (ie the school pledge) that are now under fire and impling in a somewhat sarcastic note that God may be erradicated from weddings as well. No relationship to homosexuals but a relationship to marriage degradation.
On some reflection (this is not an issue I think about) I do not really care about this issue. If it is a legal document, so be it. The institution of marriage and the family unit does indeed have bigger problems (that I outlined). I think one can just hope their own family values are intact and not worry about the next persons so much..laws & words will not really have much effect.
Is homosexuality really genetic?
1999 Black SVT
"If I were an admin I'd ban you without a second thought. " ~Trapps
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by blitzkrieg53:
Quote:
Of course not. It came from Africa. It's the result of what happens when you screw around with Mother Nature too much -- you're going to run into diseases as nature attempts to fight back.
Im afrid I dont know exactly what your trying to say here, could you clarify.
HIV..101
Genetic analysis strongly suggests that it was spread from primates to man. 2 different strains of chipanzee SIV (s for simian) for example are each more similar to human strains that other simian strains. First sample of banked blood known....from a patient from Zaire (Congo) 1959. Estimated time of entry in the the human population of sub-Sahara Africa, approx 1940s! Presumably from eating uncooked chimp brains, quite the custom in 1940..Spread across Africa was fuel by prostatution along trans African highway..>95% hetersexual or mother-infant spread in Africa (where 90% of cases are worldwide). Cannot blame homosexuality. However, acquistion in the North America was epidemiolically traced to west coast homosexual activty & Hatian IV drug abusers, which fueled rapid spread across US. Thus, homosexual activity was clearly involved until critical case number sufficient to involve substantial hetersexual/non drug users in this country was achieved. fastest growing segment with HIV..heterosexual females.
So, hetersexual (with prostitutes) and homosexual activity (and drug abuse) all to blame, not that blame will help.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by Fat Mike:
Is homosexuality really genetic?
Nope.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,467
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,467 |
Originally posted by 99SESPORT:
Originally posted by Fat Mike:
Is homosexuality really genetic?
Nope.
I believe it is. I cant not fathom any man CHOOSING to have sex with another. There are very,very small cases of men "turning" gay, but then again you never know they may have always been in the closet. Example... I did not choose to like women. I always liked women ever since I can remember.
Now I hate America? That is a new one to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,625
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,625 |
I can't fathom that people would "choose" to do lots of things. I don't think it's genetic. I think it's psychological.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,467
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,467 |
Originally posted by infuryum:
I can't fathom that people would "choose" to do lots of things. I don't think it's genetic. I think it's psychological.
Well we can argue this until I turn white. Since were both straight men we will never truly understand.
IIRC SVTcarboy even said he was born that way and that is straight from the horses mouth...
Last edited by Antonio; 07/05/03 01:03 AM.
Now I hate America? That is a new one to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132 |
I think gay people are born that way. In Europe Transvestites stand next to the streets after dark. They are really men but look like women. It's something they must really enjoy doing because they do that every night.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
I'm still here  Well sorta, I'm on the way to Phoenix (got boost). But I think two questions were posed to me. The first was why I had a problem with calling a union of homosexual partners marriage. Well, I believe that marriage is a vow between a man and a woman before God. It's simply what I believe and it's ok for others to believe differently. I think the second question was how do tax and spending policies relate to homosexuality. Again, I think folks are trying to put me in a box here. I simply said that as long as large sums of money are taken from me in the name of government policy or do make society better, then don't you think it is fair to actually consider what I think would make society better. After twelve hours of windshield time today (Tulsa, OK to Gallup, NM) I heard a lot of radio. I did get to hear Glenn Beck(sp?) this morning, and he previewed a chapter of his book that said the socialists were right (or something to that effect) that it is good for society to help his or her fellow man. He went on to state that he and was pretty sure others as well, feel really good about doing volunteer work. He mentioned some of the work he's done and then contrasted that to the feelings people have on April 15th. While large sums of tax money are taken from people, they really don't feel like they or their government is really doing good. Bringing this back into the topic, I feel the same way about this issue. I feel like the very people who are saying live and let live, only allow this if your POV is progressive. I also say live and let live, but let communities decide their standards of morals and decency. Let communities decide what they are going to fund as far as social projects. And by all means, get the Federal Government out of this. I think my argument has been consistent all along, let these issues be decided locally, and if a group wants or needs to further an agenda, let them fund it. This goes for all sides in a debate. If a group wants to promote abstinence in the schools let them fund it. If another group wants to hand out condoms, let them fund it. However, in both cases, it is ultimately up to the parent to decide. I'm probably too tired to put together a cogent arguement, but let's just say that I feel that public schools and popular culture are trying to teach my children a message that goes counter with the values my wife and I share. And what ticks me off is at least for the schools, I'm paying for them to do this. Bottom line, as long as I'm a citizen, paying taxes, I have the same right, no more, no less than any other citizen, to petition my government to craft laws and set goals that largely follow my values. I don't discourage others from doing the same, but by the same token, just because my views may be unpopular, that is no reason for them to not be considered. Do I expect the entire nation to adopt my values? No But I do believe I have the right to fashion a community based on values that do not discriminate. That's why I've chosen to focus on behavior and not particular "groups" of people. I'm not proposing communities create laws that only apply to a particular group, but instead fashion laws for all members of that community. Isn't that a big part of what we call self government? Federal fiat doesn't seem much like self government to me. TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by sigma:
The only argument confronted by any of that is in response to Genesis 19. And whether or not they simply wanted to have homosexual sex or they wanted to rape them. They article claims they simply "mentioned" sex with them. Well, I dunno what you read when you read this but when I read this:
Quote:
19:4
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
19:5
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
19:6
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
19:7
And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
I see a whole bunch of men surrounding a house asking Lot to bring out two Angels so that they can essentially gang-rape them.
Again, the passage is in regards to rape, especially that of two holy angels; it has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Actually, their is no mention of rape, in fact, there is no mention of sex. But Lot knew their plans. There were MEN who wanted to have sex with the men in the house. Yuck. Lot called this action WICKED. WICKED. In fact, he would rather give them his daughters so that the more wicked of the two actions would not be committed.
Originally posted by sigma:
First off, I'd like to just mention that this articile is itself 12 years old. And many of the 'sources' that it uses are far older than that. Most came from the early to mid 80's. A time when the medical perception on homosexuality was considerably more biased and the conclusions totally different than it found today. However, I will still address it...
Wait, you are saying that an old document cannot be trusted? I can trust an old document just as I can trust a new one if the sources are reliable and the facts coincide with the truth.
And as for the time that this document was written, with sources from the mid 80's, homosexuality had just recently been considered OKAY by the APA. In other words, the sources it uses were quite up to date. Nothing more has been learned except that homosexuality is not genetic, or in other words, not normal, but rather a sin.
Originally posted by sigma:
Secondly, this "article" is quick to make-up their own statistics, but quick to dismiss statistics that have been long quoted as reality.
I especially like this one:
Quote:
only about 1 out of 7 homosexuals have had fewer than 50 partners in their lifetime, and 99 percent of the male homosexuals interviewed have had sex with complete strangers!
Complete, total, utter, [censored]. Especially when you read further on and it claims that less than 1% of the population is homosexual. You can't have sex with hundreds of people if they don't exist. Do the math, it's just not possible unless every gay man in the US lives in San Francisco; or every gay man makes roving pilgrimages to surrounding towns to screw more guys, making that is full-time job. Of course, the people who write this crap are probably likely to believe that.
Any article that attempts to counter serious biblical discussion with such crap and obiviously made-up figures is stretching for a stick to fight with.
Yes, Promiscuity is a sin. Yes, homosexuals as a whole are likely more promiscuous than heterosexuals. But that's an issue with promiscuity, not with homosexuality. Unless you want to banish heterosexuality because of all the heterosexual adulterers out there.
So, you say he made up his numbers? Did you secure a copy of all his sources? Did you find out where he got his information? You have nothing to base that on except your own ideas of how this world should run. The article that you are referring to has everything to do with explaining what the Bible says about homosexuality, aimed at a Christian audience. And on top of that, a true Biblical perspective means nothing to lie about. If you need to, email www.equip.org and get his sources, and then refute. Until then, I trust that he knows what he is talking about.
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
William H. Masters (codirector of the Masters and Johnson Institute), Virginia E. Brown, and Robert C. Kolodny stated categorically in their 1982 work Human Sexuality: "The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today."
Masters and Johnsons is one of those sick "hospitals" that basically tortures and brainwashes homosexuals into believing that they're sinful, immoral, and "converts" them to heterosexuality. At which point the patients usually live unhappy lives or just kill themselves.
Well, in the first place, the article does not base their whole arguement on Masters and Johnson. What they are saying is that Masters and Johnson, who were sex therapists and "scientists" in the sex arena, found in their studies that homosexuality is not genetic, but rather a choice.
And second, where are you numbers about the unhappy lives that Masters and Johnson created? Or the suicides due to the treatment at Masters and Johnson? Do you have personal touch with those involved in the studies, or do you have numbers that I could see?
Originally posted by sigma:
They are heavy on the Bible quoting, and are most definently NOT a source of non-biased information on homosexuality. They always have, and always will believe, that homosexuality can be "cured". Their business depends on it.
Actually, their webpage, from what I looked over, said nothing of homosexuality. Their four areas of specialty include "relational and sex therapy, sexual compulsivity, trauma based disorders, and eating disorders." In other words, they don't rely on "curing" the sin of homosexuality to pay their bills.
Originally posted by sigma:
It's one of the few "doctors" that Christian theologians and homophobes can get to say that homosexuals are categorically not born that way."
And then they follow it up with a couple quotes from Doctors that have LONG believed that homosexuality is a sickness and nothing will ever persaude them otherwise. Both Kronemeyer and DeCecco have been around a long time on the anti-homosexual lecture circuit. They're hateful, spiteful, and any psychologist who calls his patients "fools" is not worth a damn thing in my book. You might as well be quoting Adolf Hitler to support your stance.
Then it goes on to discuss "Sexual Practices". I really love this part. Because Sex between two men is "dirty" (in the literal sense) and can be "painful", it obviously is wrong.
Well, I hate to burst their little spheres of innocence, but LOTS of heterosexual couples participate in anal intercourse, both giving and receiving. Not saying that makes it right, that's obviously sinful too, but just that anal intercourse is far from limited to gays only.
Any form of intercourse can be dirty, painful, and spread disease. Anal sex can be none of that if done properly.
And the argument that you can't receive pleasure that way (as the receiver - male or female), so God did not intend intercourse that way, has just not tried it themselves. Go ask a real Doctor, someone versed in sexual anatomy, and they'll tell you that the human body, both male and female, is extremely receptive to anal intercourse if done properly, and because of our physiology will likely result in greater pleasure for both partners.
Again, let's go back to the Bible, God's own words, and look at Song of Solomon. This book tells you what sex is. It's a love relationship between a man and a woman. That's real sex. Not the "one night stand" or the "live together to test things out" but rather a lifetime of being committed and growing together in oneness.
And again, I ask that you give me names of the Doctors, and quotes with references that say that sticking anything up the anus is anything but dangerous. I'm not a doctor, but I don't think much, if anything, was made to be stuck up the anus.
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
I believe that any unbiased reader would have to admit that homosexuality is neither a healthy lifestyle nor a natural one.
Yeah, like this article should be commenting on "biasedness".
Did you forget to look at the study that he quoted? The average lifespan of a homosexual man is "33 years shorter" than that of the average heterosexual man. Who would want that?
Originally posted by sigma:
But, anyways, as a whole, heterosexuals are far likely to have "unhealthy" and "unnatural" sexual lifestyles. Everything that 2 gay men can do, a man and a woman can do. But there's lots that a man and woman can do that 2 men cannot. And when one starts discussing both anal and vaginal intercourse, the "healthyness" of intercourse decreases exponentially. It's not exactly a totally a healthy thing to do but millions of men and women are having anal, vaginal, and oral sex every night -- Being just as sinful as the average gay man.
Okay. So there are heterosexuals who sin also... There is nothing healthy about sticking ones (anything?) up someone elses "anus". The anus is a dirty region of the body, and man, it's just sick to think of regardless of sexual orientation.
Originally posted by sigma:
It goes on to bring in the possibility of change. However, it's key "sources" are Kronemeyer and Nicolossi. The Goebels of the Anti-Homosexual world. Their tactics are nothing more than brainwash, with far more disastrously failed cases than "successful conversions".
What do they do? Any evidence? Could you point me in the right direction?
Originally posted by sigma:
If I seclude someone long enough and punish them hard enough, I can get anyone to do anything. I could even make you renounce Christ, 99SESport. The things they do are sick, twisted, and far more sinful than any Christian would claim homosexuality to be.
Depends on who you are talking to. God has promised me differently. Christ is my comforter, therefore I would rest in Him and in these verses, which of course are God's Holy written word.
Romans 5
1 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God. 3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.
Romans 8
18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
2 Corinthians 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. 6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. 7 Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.
1 Peter 4
12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief-maker; 16 yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God. 17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And "If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?" 19 Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will do right and entrust their souls to a faithful Creator.
1 Peter 5
9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world. 10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, establish, and strengthen you.
God's promise to me, to comfort me, regardless of my suffering. Ever heard of Cory Ten Boom? End of discussion there.
Originally posted by sigma:
Maybe if they could get someone to support their article who lifestyle and carreer didn't depend on saying that Homosexuals are Diseased, maybe their argument would have more weight. But this article was not meant to educate homosexuals, it was meant to "educate" Christians that just needed support for their arguments.
Right sigma, right. Look above. These articles were written for those searching for answers, regardless of faith or non-faith.
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers.
Do me a favor and just do the math on this.
It's not farking possible!
1,000 lifetime partners?! Holy [censored]. I'm jealous.
That's 28% with more than 1,000. Again, unless every single gay man lived in San Francisco and they all [censored] 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in one big huge orgy of *ahem" "Homo sex" (love that phrase), it's just not possible.
I mean, damn, if you're going to make up numbers, at least make up something that makes sense. But then, if Christians used a little sense in their reasoning, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Magic Johnson...end of story.
Originally posted by sigma:
And I'm not even going to refute the second article. There's enough bias, hate, and ignorance in the first one to start our own "Endlosung". And if you don't know what that is, look it up. Maybe it'll hit a chord.
But Sigma, the second article is the one you were supposed to look at.
The Second Article:
Leviticus 18 and 20
Romans 1:18-27
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10
Here are the other verses discussed that you thought were left out. Not only that, but it explains nearly each of the arguments you "pulled out of the magic hat" in your earlier post.
Sigma, regardless of what you say, regardless of how you feel, homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible numerous times, and each time there is nothing GOOD about homosexuality. Remember though, that in and through Christ, each of us can be saved from our sins, including the sin of homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,840
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,840 |
I thought about getting in on this post party, but I'm afraid I might be at too much a lack of knowledge after thirteen pages of arguing back and forth.   Either that, or my opinion would be looked at, ripped apart, and the pieces burned by the Apocalypse.  Be that as it may, I have no problem with gay people (as long as I'm not picked as one of their partners), yet I don't fathom the idea of two men/women getting "married". It just doesn't fly in my book. End of story.  BTW, I'm ready for responses. 
Troll. 1997 VW Jetta MkIII GLS 5spd
All hail my appearance on CEG!
|
|
|
|
|
