Controversial issues - Left or Right?

[chopiabin]

I know.

[chopiabin]

I just wanted to see if anyone was interested in starting this up again. I would like to see Hanny J. J.'s opinions.

[Hannah Joy]

I would think you could guess.  I'm not going to read through all the posts or justify my opinions to you.

Where do people stand on abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, etc.?

I'm on the right - against abortion, against homosexuality, and for the death penalty.  And, yes, I did vote for Bush in 2000, and I intend to this year as well, unless someone better shows up, which is unlikely.

[chopiabin]

Good to see you believe in some stale old book rather than in the rights of living, working, and suffering human beings. You're a sweetheart.

You should read The Children Are Free, which shows that the bible has many passages in it that support long-term, loving homosexual relationships. Are you against eating pork or women wearing their hair uncovered? I thought so. What a hippocrite just like the rest of them.

[ninja600rs]

You respond as if she says, "I hate those homos".  Rather what I see her saying is that homosexuality is a problem.  There are numerous psychological problems (i.e. alcoholism, schizophrenia etc...) to which people are bound and often times spend their life fighting against.  Homosexuals are people just like everyone, but they have a problem.  Rather than addressing homosexuality as a problem it has slowly become acceptable as "norm", and this seems right like accepting alcoholism as the "norm" does.  I think this is what us "evil hating right wingers" are trying to say for the most part.  

[chopiabin]

Comparing alcoholism and homosexuality is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Alcoholism requires that you drink alcohol, which is a choice. Homosexuality is something that you are born with. It is not a choice. One does not have to be sexually active to be gay. You act like it's an addiction and there's acure. Let me tell you, anyone who says he or she is "cured" is lying to themselves. How many homosexuals (that are not trying to be "cured") do you know on a personal level? When you actually see that they are human beings that love and feel, maybe you could stop saying things about their mental stability. I myself am a homosexual, and I do not have any mental problems. I am a human being, and you are highly offensive.

[ninja600rs]

That is where you and me differ then because I think that it is a choice.  I think that some people just have more of a predisposition than others.  It is not my desire to offend you just trying to relay what I think the truth is  - Jon

[chopiabin]

Well, if you're not gay, how do you "know" it's a choice? I assure you, it is not. Who in their right mind would choose to be oppressed and to have limited rights?

[DAwud7]

Ima have too butt in on this one. First there is no proof someone is born gay, i believe it is a sexual preference of the person Yes a choice. But just cause someones gay doesnt mean they are bad person, i know many gay men i aint gay but they are welcome too be my friends. Under no terms is it appropriate too say a person has a problem because they are gay its a sexual preference thier choice as long as they dont harm me and practice what they do safely let them be. Besides many of yoru great people threwout histroy have been latent homosexuals. Juluis Ceasar and the other Ceasars. Constatine the Great was homo, many priests and bishops of the old churches gay damn one of the pastors at your church could be checking u guys out.

[schnabels_grandson]

Posted by: Chopiabin Today at 5:30pm
Well, if you're not gay, how do you "know" it's a choice? I assure you, it is not. Who in their right mind would choose to be oppressed and to have limited rights?  

Man, did you have to bait me like that?  "Who in their right mind would choose to be oppressed and to have limited rights?"  Exactly.  Nobody in their "right mind" would.

I contend that homosexual tendencies can be reduced substantially and sometimes eradicated completely.  If you are really interested in the possibilities, there is an organization of pshyciatrists and psychologists who specialize in treating and reasearching homosexuality.  https://www.narth.com/

If you visit the site and don't feel it's too biased (it's not biased at all), check out the section - "Is Homosexuality Genetic?"  It's very informative.

Ima have too butt in on this one. First there is no proof someone is born gay, i believe it is a sexual preference of the person Yes a choice. But just cause someones gay doesnt mean they are bad person, i know many gay men i aint gay but they are welcome too be my friends. Under no terms is it appropriate too say a person has a problem because they are gay its a sexual preference thier choice as long as they dont harm me and practice what they do safely let them be. Besides many of yoru great people threwout histroy have been latent homosexuals. Juluis Ceasar and the other Ceasars. Constatine the Great was homo, many priests and bishops of the old churches gay d**n one of the pastors at your church could be checking u guys out.

lol.  Those crazy pastors.

[chopiabin]

BTW - I AM THE GAY ONE HERE! Regardless of whether I am in my right mind, I know that it is not a choice.

Even if it were a choice (WHICH IT IS NOT), that does not mean the government can deprive people of rights. A biracial couple is allowed to marry, and I believe that is by choice. Even if it is not, the same thing still applies.

Seriously, don't you think that the reason why gay youth commit so many suicides a year could be the fact that homosexuality is a social stigma? Even in the most accepting countries, it is still difficult to deal with. Being told that you, as a person, are wrong and messed up is ridiculous. The truth is that the bias results from religion. If it never said in the bible "lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination," would any of you believe what you are saying? I have researched those passages, and scholars agree that they refer to the temple worshiping practices of the original Canaanites, to whom the Jews were opposed.

Btw, why do you think that there are so many gay artists and entrepreneurs? Because most gay people are very intelligent and creative.

I also believe that homosexuality can be seen as evolution's way of population control.  

[schnabels_grandson]

Posted by: Chopiabin Today at 9:43pm
BTW - I AM THE GAY ONE HERE! Regardless of whether I am in my right mind, I know that it is not a choice.

Even if it were a choice (WHICH IT IS NOT), that does not mean the government can deprive people of rights. A biracial couple is allowed to marry, and I believe that is by choice. Even if it is not, the same thing still applies.

Seriously, don't you think that the reason why gay youth commit so many suicides a year could be the fact that homosexuality is a social stigma? Even in the most accepting countries, it is still difficult to deal with. Being told that you, as a person, are wrong and messed up is ridiculous. The truth is that the bias results from religion. If it never said in the bible "lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination," would any of you believe what you are saying? I have researched those passages, and scholars agree that they refer to the temple worshiping practices of the original Canaanites, to whom the Jews were opposed.

Btw, why do you think that there are so many gay artists and entrepreneurs? Because most gay people are very intelligent and creative.  

I also believe that homosexuality can be seen as evolution's way of population control.  

Where there's a will, there's a way.  You and other homosexuals may not have made a conscious decision to be homosexual, but you can still choose to minimalize your homosexual tendencies.

As I've said before, I think that many homosexuals who commited suicide were suffering from other serious mental disorders such as depression.  I really don't see a corelation to "stigma".  The fact that homosexuals in "more excepting countries" still kill themselves just as much seems to prove my point.  You should be more careful calling it a "social stigma".  As I've said before, a movement exists to remove paraphilias from the DSM and their reason for wanting them removed is that they're a "social stigma" and can't certainly be labeled as a mental illness.

No matter what kind of face you put on it, the bible does condemn homosexuality.  Romans 1:26,27- 26:Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27: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.(New International Version)
 
1st Corinthians 6:9-11 - 9:Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10:nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11:And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV)
Read them and weep.  

Nobody said that homosexuals are stupid.  I have never even heard that as a stereotype.  Lots of strait people are artistic, you don't see me using that to justify straitness.  I would say that your use of the word "most" is erroneous.  You can't tell me that the average homosexual is smarter than the average strait person.

[chopiabin]

1. I never stated that the avg. homosexual was smarter or more creative than your avg. stright person.

2. I may concede that I do not think homosexuality is purely genetic - it is probably a combination of environmental AND genetic factors.

3. Yes, someone who is gay can "minimize their tendencies" by being abstinent or in self-denial, but with whom one has sex has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation - sexual orientation depends on to whom you are attracted.

4. Why would someone try to modify their inherent nature to fit society's Christian ideal? Certainly they have the right to try, but has anyone researched the long-term effects of such "homotherapy"  ? I think that someone should open a clinic that helps straight people become gay. Think about how this country would react to that.

5. I don't understand why people care so much about refusing gays the right to marry. You could just say "live and let live." The truth is that if two men or women want to marry, they are not threatening any straight people or their marriages. In fact, marriage is a conservative action. When people marry, they settle down, invest in the economy, etc. You can't really use the bible here, because you allow murderers to marry, you don't own slaves, and you allow women to walk with their heads uncovered. If you use biblical justification, then you are being a hippocrite because you are not protesting Muslim marriages.


6. On the NARTH site they say that "heterosexuality is a noble goal" - why is it so noble? An unbiased site should not make judgments on the value of someone's choice. They also say that they try to help gay men who do not really feel that they are gay, but I wonder if this same reasoning would apply to men who do not really feel that they are a man. Do you think NARTH would suggest that they get a sex change operation? I doubt it.

7. So far you have the only site that supports the theory that homosexuality is a mental diorder has been one that is highly biased and even included a whole section about what the bible says about homosexuality. I believe that any site that brings in the bible is automatically biased because not everyone is Christian and they are searching for things to justify their already held ideals. The site in question also used very bad statistics which included people who are not really gay. I know plenty of straight guys who have "experimented, " but they are by no means gay.

[schnabels_grandson]

1. I never stated that the avg. homosexual was smarter or more creative than your avg. stright person.

2. I may concede that I do not think homosexuality is purely genetic - it is probably a combination of environmental AND genetic factors.

3. Yes, someone who is gay can "minimize their tendencies" by being abstinent or in self-denial, but with whom one has sex has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation - sexual orientation depends on to whom you are attracted.

4. Why would someone try to modify their inherent nature to fit society's Christian ideal? Certainly they have the right to try, but has anyone researched the long-term effects of such "homotherapy"  ? I think that someone should open a clinic that helps straight people become gay. Think about how this country would react to that.  

5. I don't understand why people care so much about refusing gays the right to marry. You could just say "live and let live." The truth is that if two men or women want to marry, they are not threatening any straight people or their marriages. In fact, marriage is a conservative action. When people marry, they settle down, invest in the economy, etc. You can't really use the bible here, because you allow murderers to marry, you don't own slaves, and you allow women to walk with their heads uncovered. If you use biblical justification, then you are being a hippocrite because you are not protesting Muslim marriages.


6. On the NARTH site they say that "heterosexuality is a noble goal" - why is it so noble? An unbiased site should not make judgments on the value of someone's choice. They also say that they try to help gay men who do not really feel that they are gay, but I wonder if this same reasoning would apply to men who do not really feel that they are a man. Do you think NARTH would suggest that they get a sex change operation? I doubt it.

7. So far you have the only site that supports the theory that homosexuality is a mental diorder has been one that is highly biased and even included a whole section about what the bible says about homosexuality. I believe that any site that brings in the bible is automatically biased because not everyone is Christian and they are searching for things to justify their already held ideals. The site in question also used very bad statistics which included people who are not really gay. I know plenty of straight guys who have "experimented, " but they are by no means gay.

1. You said that "most" homosexuauls are highly artistic.  Since "most" heterosexuals are not highly artistic, your statement implied that the average homosexual has something over the average heterosexual.

2.  It would be comforting to many homosexuals if they could actualy link sexuality to a gene, but they haven't.  Many news reports claim that some "new study" finds that homosexuality is genetic.  All of these that I have seen have turned out to be groundless.  

3.  You sound like PFLAG when you claim that in order for a homosexual to become straight, they must deny something or pretend that they are really attracted to the opposite sex.  If you wish to call the thousands of ex-homosexuals liars, go ahead.  I say that attraction may determine sexual orientation, but when the causes for homosexual attraction are examined on a personal level by homosexuals in therapy, homosexuals often realize that there is something wrong.  If you want to read a lengthy exerpt from a book of case studies in the healing of homosexuality here's a link: https://www.narth.com/docs/cases.html

4.  Certainly, nobody should "modify" their "nature" to fit someone else's ideal.  Nobody is forced into homosexual treatment, as treatment has little benefit to those who do not feel there is something wrong with them.  I don't know if anyone's reasearched the "long term effects" of the therapy, but I suspect that there are none that are detrimental.  There are clinics that help homosexuals stay homosexual.  Heterosexuals don't suffer from the defecits that homosexuals do.  Therefore, a conversion would be very difficult and ultimately fruitless.

5.  I would not be a hypocrite if I used the bible.  Christians are not under the mosaic law.  One argument that proponents of Homosexual marriage cannot offer any response to is that of polygamy.  If two men can marry each other, who's to say that a man can't marry two women?  Tell me, why do laws against polygamy exist?  Becuase it, along with homosexual marriage, are destabilizing to society.  I'm not against Homosexual marriage because I realize the futility of such a stand.  I say let them do it.  The sooner the better, after homosexual marriage is legal, people will be able to work toward legalizing polygamy, incest, and bestiality.

6.  The purpose of NARTH is to help men who are unsatisfied with their homosexuality to change.  Why do you keep contradicting yourself?  You keep calling it a choice.  Men who don't feel like men are suffering from Gender Defecit.  They feel this way because they did not complete developmental processes as children.  They have not associated themselves with their own gender and are confused as a result.  NARTH would suggest reparative therapy to repair the broken gender identity.

7.  That site was from before.  I know that you feel it is biased so I haven't used it to back up anything I've said in this recent episode of debate.  That site isn't using the bible as a source of it's arguments.  It has a section that explains the bible's position on homosexuality and should not be labeled as biased because of it.  As for their studies, you can't really be sure if the experiments are accurate or not, you are assuming that they were conducted incorrectly and you may be right.  Your assumption is nowhere near enough to discredit them though.

[Josh B.]

In response to a few things 6th_Gen_Beethoven has recently posted:

I don’t like to sit by and watch you attack other members of this board, so I am going to add my opinion.  I would ask you bear with me as I analyze some of what you said, and argue another side of the issue.  I will use the ‘quote’ feature to reprint your view, and I will counter appropriately.

Arguing homosexuality is or is not a choice not something worth arguing over for a long time.  There is no way for either side to prove this yet.  

you can still choose to minimalize your homosexual tendencies.

Consider this: you try to minimalize your heterosexual tendencies.  Stop having any sexual desire towards women.  Or, if you meant homosexual “acts” – stop having any sexual acts with women.  Not that easy, is it?  It is your nature to want to be with women, just as it is the nature of a gay man to want to be with another man.  Minimilize your own tendencies.

As I've said before, I think that many homosexuals who commited [sic] suicide were suffering from other serious mental disorders such as depression.

You are right in suggesting that homosexual teens may suffer from depression.  But let’s examine why they are depressed.  Homosexual teenagers are going through a very tough part of their lives: adolescence.  Do you recall adolescence?  All those weird feelings and changes.  A very awkward time for lots of teens.  Now add onto that the fact that your sexual feelings were different from the what the majority of your peers were experiencing.  There is a huge since of isolation, lonliness.  

So again, according to published experts:
"The humiliation and frustration suffered by some adolescents struggling with conflicts over their sexual orientation may precipitate suicidal behaviour” (Garland, AF., and Zigler, E. Adolescent suicide prevention. American Psychologist, 1993. 41:2.)

"Gay and lesbian youth have a two- to threefold risk of suicide, and they are probably at greater risk for depression.” (Petersen, AC., Compas, BE., Brooks-Gunn, J., Stemmler, M., Ey, S., and Grant, KE. Depression in adolescence. American Psychologist, 1993. 41:2.)

The youth are depressed because they are teased by peers at school, told by their religious organizations that their desires are immoral, and generally feel left outside the realm of normal adolescence.  Not because of anything they did.  Just because of the way they are.  And this leads to depression – which can lead to suicidal thoughts, etc.

No matter what kind of face you put on it, the bible does condemn homosexuality.

In discussing the legality of gay marriage, the Bible should not be an issue.  According to many legal experts, there is a requirement in our Constitution that the state should be separate from the church.  

James Madison (our fourth President, popularly known as “the Father of our Constitution”) writes on the issue: “Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together” (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Just because the Bible says something does not make that thing legally viable in our country.  

1st Corinthians 6:9-11 - 9:Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders will inherit the kingdom of  (New International Version)

Now I am perplexed: the word “homosexual” was not in existence until the mid-nineteenth century (“[The word ‘homosexual’] was first seen in public print in 1869 when it appeared in two anonymous German pamphlet.” https://www.drama.uwaterloo.ca/Gross%20Indecency/homosexuality_word.shtml) …  Why does it appear in the Bible?  Because your refer to the NIV version – a modern interoperation of the Bible.  Do a little research on the original texts.  

The Greek word Paul uses, translated by the NIV as “homosexuals” is malakoi.  This word can be translated as soft to the touch, effeminate, spineless, soft-willed, even.

Yet many modern translations of the Bible have translated malakoi as  "homosexual," there is compelling evidence that this meaning is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word paiderasste. That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals.

Read them and weep.

All I can say about that statement is that it’s petty and unnecessary.

Nobody said that homosexuals are stupid.  Lots of strait [sic] people are artistic, you don't see me using that to justify straitness [sic].  You can't tell me that the average homosexual is smarter than the average strait [sic] person.

I did not see Chop say anything about gay people being smarter than straight people.  What are you trying to prove here?

If two men can marry each other, who's to say that a man can't marry two women?  …  After homosexual marriage is legal, people will be able to work toward legalizing polygamy and bestiality.

Is this really valid?  Polygamy and bestiality are not even in the same league!  One consenting adult who wants to marry another consenting adult.  The same as heterosexual marriage.  EQUALITY, in other words.  Having the same rights as heterosexual couples.  Not having sex with pets or marrying multiple people.

Gay couples are not looking for “special rights,” just EQUAL rights.

You said that "most" homosexuauls are highly artistic.  Since "most" heterosexuals are not highly artistic, your statement implied that the average homosexual has something over the average heterosexual.

His statement implied that homosexuals, in general, express their artistic side.  He did not say that most heterosexuals are not as well.  Again, what are you arguing here?  He said nothing about homosexuals having something over heterosexuals.

If you wish to call the thousands of ex-homosexuals liars, go ahead.

Did he call those “thousands of people” liars?  No.  If you want to call the millions of gay people in this country and around the world liars for claiming that their homosexuality was not a choice for them, then you go ahead.  It does not make you correct.  You’re arguing against something Chop never even said.

Heterosexuals don't suffer from the defecits [sic] that homosexuals do.

You have NEVER presented any compelling evidence that homosexuals suffer any deficits.  Your NARTH evidence is about as compelling to me as my Human Rights Campaign (www.hrc.org) evidence would be to you.  

NARTH is the only professional mental health organization that promotes reparative therapy.  It is a small group of people disseminating their opinions.  The organization is one that religious conservatives tout as proof that gay people are mentally deficient.  

Much larger mental health organizations – that is, the MAINSTREAM – have formed a coalition against reparative therapy.  A few of these groups are: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, National Education Association.  These groups are not a fringe group, like NARTH.  They are the groups to which nearly all members of those prospective fields belong.  They are researchers, doctors, and professionals who have done research on this therapy, and said that it is unhealthy and should not be used.  Whose opinions will I trust – the AMA/APA/NEA/etc. or NARTH?  I think I will go with the mainstream healthcare and education professionals, not the organization that religious conservatives tout as proof that gay people are mentally deficient..

(Chop’s) assumption is nowhere near enough to discredit (NARTH) though.

I think that Chop does not need to discredit this group: plenty of mainstream professional organizations – nationally recognized and accepted experts on education and mental health - already have.

My two cents.

-Josh

[schnabels_grandson]

Consider this: you try to minimalize your heterosexual tendencies.  Stop having any sexual desire towards women.  Or, if you meant homosexual “acts” – stop having any sexual acts with women.  Not that easy, is it?  It is your nature to want to be with women, just as it is the nature of a gay man to want to be with another man.  Minimilize your own tendencies.

One, I'm not married so I do not engage in any sexual acts.  Two, heterosexuality is normal so there is no reason to try to change it.

You are right in suggesting that homosexual teens may suffer from depression.  But let’s examine why they are depressed.  Homosexual teenagers are going through a very tough part of their lives: adolescence.  Do you recall adolescence?  All those weird feelings and changes.  A very awkward time for lots of teens.  Now add onto that the fact that your sexual feelings were different from the what the majority of your peers were experiencing.  There is a huge since of isolation, lonliness.  

So again, according to published experts:
"The humiliation and frustration suffered by some adolescents struggling with conflicts over their sexual orientation may precipitate suicidal behaviour” (Garland, AF., and Zigler, E. Adolescent suicide prevention. American Psychologist, 1993. 41:2.)

"Gay and lesbian youth have a two- to threefold risk of suicide, and they are probably at greater risk for depression.” (Petersen, AC., Compas, BE., Brooks-Gunn, J., Stemmler, M., Ey, S., and Grant, KE. Depression in adolescence. American Psychologist, 1993. 41:2.)

The youth are depressed because they are teased by peers at school, told by their religious organizations that their desires are immoral, and generally feel left outside the realm of normal adolescence.  Not because of anything they did.  Just because of the way they are.  And this leads to depression – which can lead to suicidal thoughts, etc.

I am still an adolescent.  I have never had any of the confusion or felt any of the awkwardness associated with it.  Thanks for explaining my point though.

In discussing the legality of gay marriage, the Bible should not be an issue.  According to many legal experts, there is a requirement in our Constitution that the state should be separate from the church.  

James Madison (our fourth President, popularly known as “the Father of our Constitution”) writes on the issue: “Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together” (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Just because the Bible says something does not make that thing legally viable in our country.

I have never said that Homosexual marriage should not be allowed.  I have never used the bible to reason that homosexuality is wrong.  I was explaining that a lot of people are trying to get around what the bible says so they can be Christian and homosexual at the same time.  

Now I am perplexed: the word “homosexual” was not in existence until the mid-nineteenth century (“[The word ‘homosexual’] was first seen in public print in 1869 when it appeared in two anonymous German pamphlet.” https://www.drama.uwaterloo.ca/Gross%20Indecency/homosexuality_word.shtml ) …  Why does it appear in the Bible?  Because your refer to the NIV version – a modern interoperation of the Bible.  Do a little research on the original texts.  

The Greek word Paul uses, translated by the NIV as “homosexuals” is malakoi.  This word can be translated as soft to the touch, effeminate, spineless, soft-willed, even.

Yet many modern translations of the Bible have translated malakoi as  "homosexual," there is compelling evidence that this meaning is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word paiderasste. That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals.

Well, thanks for telling me to do reasearch on the original texts.  A thing like that never crossed my mind.  Another translation renders it "nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men".  It doesn't matter if the word homosexual existed or not.  the word hell didn't exist in bible times but people have no qualms using it.

Is this really valid?  Polygamy and bestiality are not even in the same league!  One consenting adult who wants to marry another consenting adult.  The same as heterosexual marriage.  EQUALITY, in other words.  Having the same rights as heterosexual couples.  Not having sex with pets or marrying multiple people.

Gay couples are not looking for “special rights,” just EQUAL rights.

Yes, it is valid.  Because of the nature of homosexuality, granting marriage to them would be a special right.  It would be throwing the traditional arrangement through the window, opening the way for other "minorities" to sue for what they consider to be their rights.

Did he call those “thousands of people” liars?  No.  If you want to call the millions of gay people in this country and around the world liars for claiming that their homosexuality was not a choice for them, then you go ahead.  It does not make you correct.  You’re arguing against something Chop never even said.

Chop said "Yes, someone who is gay can "minimize their tendencies" by being abstinent or in self-denial, but with whom one has sex has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation - sexual orientation depends on to whom you are attracted."  He was implying that denial and abstinence are nessecary to change homosexual tendencies.  That is a challenge to people who have changed.  I have not once said that Homosexuality was a conscious choice.  

You have NEVER presented any compelling evidence that homosexuals suffer any deficits.  Your NARTH evidence is about as compelling to me as my Human Rights Campaign (www.hrc.org) evidence would be to you.  

NARTH is the only professional mental health organization that promotes reparative therapy.  It is a small group of people disseminating their opinions.  The organization is one that religious conservatives tout as proof that gay people are mentally deficient.  

Much larger mental health organizations – that is, the MAINSTREAM – have formed a coalition against reparative therapy.  A few of these groups are: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, National Education Association.  These groups are not a fringe group, like NARTH.  They are the groups to which nearly all members of those prospective fields belong.  They are researchers, doctors, and professionals who have done research on this therapy, and said that it is unhealthy and should not be used.  Whose opinions will I trust – the AMA/APA/NEA/etc. or NARTH?  I think I will go with the mainstream healthcare and education professionals, not the organization that religious conservatives tout as proof that gay people are mentally deficient..

I read the literature, I'm convinced.  If you don't get it, it doesn't mean it's not the right method.  All I can tell you is that the other organisations you mentioned are slaves to politics and popular opinion.  They are extremely unethical groups even though they are mainstream.

I think that Chop does not need to discredit this group: plenty of mainstream professional organizations – nationally recognized and accepted experts on education and mental health - already have.  

My two cents.

To my knowledge, nobody has discredited reparative therapy.  Lot's of "mainstream" groups that are corrupted have challenged it, but nobody has proved that it is bad or that there is anything wrong with it.

[Josh B.]

One, I'm not married so I do not engage in any sexual acts.  Two, heterosexuality is normal so there is no reason to try to change it.

OK - but have you ever had any sexual drive at all?  I'm not trying to be vulgar here ... but if you have ever had sexual desires, and you were told they were bad, wouldn't you be a little confused yourself?  And you've never presented any compelling argument that homosexuality is not normal, as well.  in fact, you've said repeatedly that homosexuality was not a choice  ... so why should gay people change?

I am still an adolescent.  I have never had any of the confusion or felt any of the awkwardness associated with it.

That really is lucky, as many adolescents do feel awkward and/or confused.  

I really do apologize, though: I did not realize I was arguing with someone quite so young about this issue.  

Here's a suggestion for the future:
You use the NIV and NARTH to express your views.  Good for you.  Your fear of homosexuality, although I consider it without merit, is a genuine fear.  Maybe NARTH can counsel you on how to get along in a world becoming more and more accepting of homosexuals every day.

I have never used the bible to reason that homosexuality is wrong

Didn’t you?  I thought that’s what you meant on 16 January 2004:

It's no longer politically correct to challenge the homosexual/promiscuous lifestyle, everybody is supposed to see it as being right and acceptable.  Well I don't accept it and I never will.  The bible does say that homosexulity [sic] is wrong.

First - I would argue that that homosexual lifestyles and promiscuous lifestyles are not linked – there are plenty of straight people who are promiscuous; there are plenty of straight people who are not.  The same is true of homosexuals.  You can’t stereotype some group like that and expect me to just agree with you.  The stereotype is just that: a stereotype.  

And, again, you said:

 The bible does say that homosexulity [sic] is wrong.

That seems exactly like you are using the Bible to reason that homosexuality is wrong.

 Because of the nature of homosexuality, granting marriage to them would be a special right.

What nature of homosexuality?  How is it a special right for two women who love each other and are committed to each other to be married?  I have trouble seeing how that particular issue is one of anything but equality.

(Chop) was implying that denial and abstinence are nessecary [sic] to change homosexual tendencies.

     
Is that not what you were arguing earlier?  That gay people do not chose to be gay, but they can change if they deny their non-chosen (aka “natural”) feelings?  I'd say that, according to actual scientific evidence not taken out of context, homosexuality is not a mental disorder.  It is not something that needs to be cured.

I read the literature, I'm convinced.

You read literature; I was referring to scientific opinion from these leading medical organizations:

THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION

"The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed ... the APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation.”

"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders” (1989).

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

"The psychosocial problems of gay and lesbian adolescents are primarily the result of societal stigma, hostility, hatred and isolation.”

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

"Most of the emotional disturbance experienced by gay men and lesbians around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes but rather is due more to a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment. For this reason, aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians.”

American Psychological Association

On Reparative Therapy: “Many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective on sexual orientation, rather than from mental health researchers; the treatments and their outcomes are poorly documented; and the length of time that clients are followed up on after treatment is too short.”

"In 1990, the American Psychological Association stated that scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works and that it can do more harm than good. Changing one's sexual orientation is not simply a matter of changing one's sexual behavior. It would require altering one's emotional, romantic and sexual feelings and restructuring one's self-concept and social identity.”

NEWSWEEK, August 17, 1998
Can Gays Convert?
By John Leland and Mark Miller

Newsweek on Joseph Nicolosi, the President of NARTH:
"Nicolosi's patients, most controversially, can be as young as 3 years old. Like Exodus, he trumpets his success rates, but has done no long-term follow-up study. 'I don't have time,' he says."

He doesn’t have time.  He’s probably too busy fishing (a manly activity) or something.

The only scientific evidence that these groups cite for reasons gay people should change, Dr. Robert Spitzer, says that these groups are missing the reality of his research.  They quote him to say gays can become straight … let’s see what the actual scientist says:

"I anticipated some misuse of the study results but I did not anticipate that some of the media would say such ridiculous things as that the study raised the issue of homosexuality and choice.  Of course no one chooses to be homosexual and no one chooses to be heterosexual.” Dr. Robert Spitzer, May 16, 2001.

Look: this argument can go no further.  You don’t believe in the research of the leading medical organizations in the country.  You say they are ‘corrupt’ without giving me any reason to believe you.  The only things you cite are the Bible and NARTH.  I have no faith in NARTH, and I have a hard time believing that everything in the NIV translation is a direct command from God.  You don't think that Paul might have been mistranslated?  Is there really 0% that this might have been misconstrued?

These leading medical associations have done studies and research on the subject – even ::gasp:: long-term research.  The NARTH president admits that he does not do long-term follow-ups.  

You’ve presented your point, and I don’t buy it.  You won’t agree with me either, so we’re stuck.  I will refrain from commenting on you in future, unless you actually say something worthwhile or so egregiously malicious that I feel I must comment.

[schnabels_grandson]

OK - but have you ever had any sexual drive at all?  I'm not trying to be vulgar here ... but if you have ever had sexual desires, and you were told they were bad, wouldn't you be a little confused yourself?  And you've never presented any compelling argument that homosexuality is not normal, as well.  in fact, you've said repeatedly that homosexuality was not a choice  ... so why should gay people change?

I am not saying and have never said that all homosexuals should change.  I say that if a homosexual is not satisfied with their lifestyle, change is possible.  

That really is lucky, as many adolescents do feel awkward and/or confused.  

I really do apologize, though: I did not realize I was arguing with someone quite so young about this issue.  

Here's a suggestion for the future:
You use the NIV and NARTH to express your views.  Good for you.  Your fear of homosexuality, although I consider it without merit, is a genuine fear.  Maybe NARTH can counsel you on how to get along in a world becoming more and more accepting of homosexuals every day.

I use various translation of the bible.  NIV was just the one I used there, randomly.  I don't think it's fair to assume that I have a genuine fear of homosexuality.  I realized long ago that things are the way they are and they only get worse.   I have said many times that I do not fear homosexuality, I am simply opposed to it.  

Didn’t you?  I thought that’s what you meant on 16 January 2004:

Someone had previously alluded to the bible forbidding homosexuality.  I was affirming that the bible does condemn it.

First - I would argue that that homosexual lifestyles and promiscuous lifestyles are not linked – there are plenty of straight people who are promiscuous; there are plenty of straight people who are not.  The same is true of homosexuals.  You can’t stereotype some group like that and expect me to just agree with you.  The stereotype is just that: a stereotype

I think you misinterperated my slash.  I meant both of those lifestyles respectively are very popular and people get an earfull if they challenge them.

What nature of homosexuality?  How is it a special right for two women who love each other and are committed to each other to be married?  I have trouble seeing how that particular issue is one of anything but equality.

The taboo nature.  Polygamy is only not allowed because it is taboo.  It is a special right because it is violating traditional values.  Vaules on which the laws in this country are based.

Is that not what you were arguing earlier?  That gay people do not chose to be gay, but they can change if they deny their non-chosen (aka “natural”) feelings?  I'd say that, according to actual scientific evidence not taken out of context, homosexuality is not a mental disorder.  It is not something that needs to be cured.

No, denial only hurts.  In order for a homosexual to have a meaningful conversion to heterosexuality, he must accept and understand the reason that he is have unwanted homosexual feelings.  

You read literature; I was referring to scientific opinion from these leading medical organizations

Thier "scientific opinion" is bought.  They are as I already said, slaves to politics and special interest groups.  Also, the removal of Homosexuality from the DSM has bared research so none of them can claim that homosexuality is not a mental illness.  

[Josh B.]

I am not saying and have never said that all homosexuals should change.

Then what are you arguing about?  What is the point of this discussion?  If you do not think that homosexuals should change, why are you pointing out your perceived disgust by their behavior?  You call them immoral – to what end?  If you don’t think they should change, then stop arguing about it.

I think you misinterperated [sic] my slash.  I meant both of those lifestyles respectively are very popular and people get an earfull [sic] if they challenge them.

Sorry about that.  I assumed that since you juxtaposed these two independent issues, you were saying they were somehow related.  That sort of implicit connection through juxtaposition is what the conservative propaganda uses to form arguments.  I’m sorry for assuming you were employing the same tactics.

Someone had previously alluded to the bible forbidding homosexuality.  I was affirming that the bible does condemn it.

You said:

It's no longer politically correct to challenge the homosexual/promiscuous lifestyle, everybody is supposed to see it as being right and acceptable.  Well I don't accept it and I never will.  The bible does say that homosexulity [sic] is wrong.

In that context, how can you expect me not to assume that your rationality is that the Bible says it’s wrong?  It grosses you out, so you will never accept it?  In two sentences in the same paragraph, you state you will never accept homosexuality and then you give the Bible as evidence for your disapproval.  Sorry for pointing out your own words to you, but do you see where one might get confused by reading your statements?

(Homosexual marriage) is a special right because it is violating traditional values.

One person in love with another person wanting to publically confirm and legally recognize their relationship.  One man, one woman.  Two men.  Two women.  Comparing it to polygamy is only applicable if you are saying you agree with straight polygamy but not with gay polygamy.  Your using polygamy in this case is, as the saying goes, comparing apples and oranges.

In order for a homosexual to have a meaningful conversion to heterosexuality, he must accept and understand the reason that he is have [sic] unwanted homosexual feelings.

Did you identify that “reason” yet?  Again, if you say people are born gay (that is, it’s not a choice), then why should they search for a reason to change?  Because their society disapproves?  Because you disapprove?  

Perhaps you'll say "because they are unhappy with what they are."  From many of the "testimonials" posted on the NARTH website, it seems like this particular group of people was pressured by society to change.  That is, they felt excluded from society ...

Thier [sic] "scientific opinion" is bought.  They are as I already said, slaves to politics and special interest groups.  

Well, then, as you do not agree with the leading health organizations, in the past you’ve used Freud to back your arguments.  Let’s see what he wrote on the issue in 1935 --
Freud in a 1935 letter regarding homosexuality:
"(Homosexuality) is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness.  Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too....” (Freud as reprinted in Jones, E. (1957). Sigmund Freud: Life and work (Vol. 3). London: Hogarth.)

Also, the removal of Homosexuality from the DSM has bared [sic] research so none of them can claim that homosexuality is not a mental illness.

First, the fact that homosexuality is not in the DSM or part of the W.H.O.’s lists of mental illnesses voids the necessity to prove that it is not a mental illness.  Does that make sense?  If the health organizations agree that it is not a mental illness, why should researches have to prove again that it isn’t?  The research up until the 1973 change apparently does that, or they would not have changed their viewpoint in the first place.  

Aside from that, research after the removal from the DSM in 1973 does not exist?  Explain this these findings -  Schroeder, M., & Shidlo, A. (2001). Ethical issues in sexual orientation conversion therapies: An empirical study of consumers. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 131-166.

Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder reported findings from a study of 202 homosexuals who were recruited through the Internet and direct mailings to groups advocating conversion therapy. Most of the participants (178, or 88%) reported that efforts to change their sexual orientation had failed. Only 6 (3%) achieved what the researchers considered a heterosexual shift. Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder also reported that many respondents were harmed by the attempt to change.  

That’s just ONE example of research done after the 1973 removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the DSM.  This research was published in 2002.  

And if you think that the national organizations I mentioned are faulty –

Thier [sic] "scientific opinion" is bought.  They are as I already said, slaves to politics and special interest groups.

What about the World Health Organization?  That’s the internationally accepted expert on medical affairs.  Right?  They also do not consider homosexuality a mental disorder, as you do.

You have still presented NO proof or evidence to me that the following organizations are “bought” –

Thier [sic] "scientific opinion" is bought.

And again, earlier:

All I can tell you is that the other organisations you mentioned are slaves to politics and popular opinion.  They are extremely unethical groups even though they are mainstream.  

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
National Education Association

And now you’re probably going to attack the W.H.O. as well.

With no evidence to support your argument, once again, I will consider your judgment on these organizations inaccurate.

[chopiabin]

Thank you Josh, it was getting kind of difficult to even read these.

My questions are:

1 How does gay marriage pose a threat to the family unit? A homosexual couple who adopts kids is taking a burden off of the state and society. What makes you think that two men can not raise a child?

2. I think you have somehow been lead to believe that tradition is always correct. Nietzsche describes this anomaly in many of his works as he describes the development of bizarre social and religious customs that become sanctified and remain so even after they are no longer useful. I don't know if you realize it, but only about 50 years ago, biracial marriage was taboo. People said that it was non-traditional, and therefore must be wrong. Was asking for equal rights for biracial couples really just asking for special rights?  80 odd years ago women were not allowed to vote because men saw women taking a non-traditional role and opposed it. Women were seen as intellectually inferior. Are you opposed to biracial marriage or women's rights? Using your reasoning, one could easily and logically assume that you are.


3. What is the definition of a "normal" human being? What deficits do homosexuals have? Simply the fact that they are not straight? Can you actually give me any noteworthy, non-biased scientific research that shows homosexuality is a mental disorder?  

[schnabels_grandson]

Then what are you arguing about?  What is the point of this discussion?  If you do not think that homosexuals should change, why are you pointing out your perceived disgust by their behavior?  You call them immoral – to what end?  If you don’t think they should change, then stop arguing about it.

I'm arguing that homosexuals that want to, can change.  

In that context, how can you expect me not to assume that your rationality is that the Bible says it’s wrong?  It grosses you out, so you will never accept it?  In two sentences in the same paragraph, you state you will never accept homosexuality and then you give the Bible as evidence for your disapproval.  Sorry for pointing out your own words to you, but do you see where one might get confused by reading your statements?

 

If you'll notice, most of the time I'm too lazy to seperate the sentences I'm responding to.  I could have made that sentence into it's own paragraph, but I didn't because I thought the average forum viewer would be able to figure it out.  I guess I was wrong.  You seem to be implying that I'm changing what I said before to cover my tracks or something.  If I said something wrong and I see that it was wrong, I will retract it.  If you don't understand something I said and put words in my mouth, the responsibility of figuring it out is yours.

Did you identify that “reason” yet?  Again, if you say people are born gay (that is, it’s not a choice), then why should they search for a reason to change?  Because their society disapproves?  Because you disapprove?  

Perhaps you'll say "because they are unhappy with what they are."  From many of the "testimonials" posted on the NARTH website, it seems like this particular group of people was pressured by society to change.  That is, they felt excluded from society ...  

Yes, I agree with the reparative theory.  I think that the reason homosexuals often feel an emptiness in their homosexual relationships is because they are looking for masculine affirmation but attempting to gain it by sexual relationships, which is not the way to do it.  STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!!  I never said that I agree that homosexuals are born gay.  I know that they have been unable to associate sexual orientation with genes.  

Well, then, as you do not agree with the leading health organizations, in the past you’ve used Freud to back your arguments.  Let’s see what he wrote on the issue in 1935 --
Freud in a 1935 letter regarding homosexuality:
"(Homosexuality) is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness.  Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too....” (Freud as reprinted in Jones, E. (1957). Sigmund Freud: Life and work (Vol. 3). London: Hogarth.)

Look, I'm not saying homosexuality is a crime.  I'm not saying that homosexuals should be persecuted.  I am saying that homosexuals can change.  I know where your getting all this information so don't bother posting it.  If I want to read it I'll go to https://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm.

First, the fact that homosexuality is not in the DSM or part of the W.H.O.’s lists of mental illnesses voids the necessity to prove that it is not a mental illness.  Does that make sense?  If the health organizations agree that it is not a mental illness, why should researches have to prove again that it isn’t?  The research up until the 1973 change apparently does that, or they would not have changed their viewpoint in the first place.  

Aside from that, research after the removal from the DSM in 1973 does not exist?  Explain this these findings -  Schroeder, M., & Shidlo, A. (2001). Ethical issues in sexual orientation conversion therapies: An empirical study of consumers. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 131-166.

Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder reported findings from a study of 202 homosexuals who were recruited through the Internet and direct mailings to groups advocating conversion therapy. Most of the participants (178, or 88%) reported that efforts to change their sexual orientation had failed. Only 6 (3%) achieved what the researchers considered a heterosexual shift. Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder also reported that many respondents were harmed by the attempt to change.  

That’s just ONE example of research done after the 1973 removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the DSM.  This research was published in 2002.  

And if you think that the national organizations I mentioned are faulty –

So you're saying that because the A.P.A (the first organisation to remove homosexuality from it's list of disorders) doesn't have homosexuality on it's list, that we know all there is to know about homosexuality?  We know enough to certainly declare that it is normal and in no way deviant?  We know for certain that it's not a disorder?  They were pressured by homosexual activist groups.  They claim that there is not enough empirical evidence to support that homosexuality is a mental illness.  I know both sides.

Now there is a slight rebound in research.  Oh wow, an internet solicited survey concluded that reparative therapy doesn't work and harms it's participants.  Why am I not buying this?

With no evidence to support your argument, once again, I will consider your judgment on these organizations inaccurate.

What do I care?  It's obvious that we wont see eye to eye.  

[chopiabin]

Who says that homosexual realtionships are empty? There are plenty of loving couples that have been together for twenty or thirty or even more years.

[Josh B.]

I know where your getting all this information so don't bother posting it.

Do you know where I’m getting all of my information?  I seriously doubt it.  I did quote a particular website (well, really I quoted something they quoted) … but what about all the other information I’ve posted?  

And why should I not post it?  The information I’ve posted here is information from all those groups whom you’ve discounted … for some reason you’ve yet to explain.  And, if you’d like, I’d be willing to post names of books, essays, journal articles, and other websites (in addition to the religioustolerance.org website) from which I glean my information.  All my information does not come from just one source.  It comes from a wide range of expert sources.  (Think of that list I’ve posted a few times of internationally recognized and accepted and lauded health and education organizations).  That particular website just references a whole lot of other expert sources that can and should be considered when discussing this topic.  And I certainly did not get the Freud from that website…

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!!  I never said that I agree that homosexuals are born gay.

No – what you said before was that gay people don’t decide to be gay.  Does that statement not imply that homosexuality is not a choice?  Does that not imply that they were born that way?

You and other homosexuals may not have made a conscious decision to be homosexual

I’m not putting words in your mouth.  I am reposting the things you’ve said, and I’m making the same sorts of inferences you made on what Chop had to say, except that my inferences actually follow.  

 Oh wow, an internet solicited survey concluded that reparative therapy doesn't work and harms it's participants.  Why am I not buying this?

If you don’t ‘buy’ published researchers, then there is nothing more to discuss.  NARTH admits that they do not do long-term research.  They do not follow up on their “success” cases.  These expert scientists have.

What do I care?

I am not trying to offend you.  I just wanted you to give evidence to support your claims about those international and national organizations.  

I realize that your feelings may be hurt at this point, and they should not be.  That was not my intention.  Your views are your own, and there is nothing anyone but you can do to change them.  However, you are saying that all the organizations I listed are wrong and that NARTH (a fringe group) is the correct party.  I disagree most strongly to your claim, so you’re correct:

It's obvious that we wont see eye to eye.

You are, however, one of the more interesting, well-read, and informed people with whom I’ve discussed this issue, and, despite the fact that your main reference is NARTH, you present your argument (and your beliefs) fairly well.  I just disagree, so I feel that I must combat you at every word.  Does that make sense?  

This particularly was well said:

I think that the reason homosexuals often feel an emptiness in their homosexual relationships is because they are looking for masculine affirmation but attempting to gain it by sexual relationships.

The only thing I’d argue with is that you say “homosexuals often feel” instead of “some homosexuals often feel…”  Had you used the word ‘some,’ then I would actually agree with you.  I’ve never heard of real people going through that, but I concede that some people may have, so what you say could very well be true.  A good observation - and it’s well put.

Goodbye for now

[schnabels_grandson]

No – what you said before was that gay people don’t decide to be gay.  Does that statement not imply that homosexuality is not a choice?  Does that not imply that they were born that way?  

No it does not.  One can unconsciously become gay after birth due to environmental factors.

If you don’t ‘buy’ published researchers, then there is nothing more to discuss.  NARTH admits that they do not do long-term research.  They do not follow up on their “success” cases.  These expert scientists have.

I would probably buy it if the subjects of the research were not so questionably recruited.  They could be anybody.  At least NARTH doesn't try to pass off such studies as legitimate.

I am not trying to offend you.  I just wanted you to give evidence to support your claims about those international and national organizations.  

I realize that your feelings may be hurt at this point, and they should not be.  That was not my intention.  Your views are your own, and there is nothing anyone but you can do to change them.  However, you are saying that all the organizations I listed are wrong and that NARTH (a fringe group) is the correct party.  I disagree most strongly to your claim, so you’re correct:

Don't worry, I am very difficult to offend.  I am easy to tire out though.  I think that the DSM section on Homosexuality was edited prematurely because of political pressure.  Homosexuals rallied at APA conventions and the APA decided to assemble a team to determine the status of homosexuality as a mental disorder.  This team did not include any Psychiatrists who didn't feel homosexuality was normal.  Because of this, their findings and final decision on homosexuality's nature can be assumed to be biased.

You are, however, one of the more interesting, well-read, and informed people with whom I’ve discussed this issue, and, despite the fact that your main reference is NARTH, you present your argument (and your beliefs) fairly well.  I just disagree, so I feel that I must combat you at every word.  Does that make sense?  

This particularly was well said:

Thank you.  It makes perfect sense.  I feel the same way.

The only thing I’d argue with is that you say “homosexuals often feel” instead of “some homosexuals often feel…”  Had you used the word ‘some,’ then I would actually agree with you.  I’ve never heard of real people going through that, but I concede that some people may have, so what you say could very well be true.  A good observation - and it’s well put.

Yes, I should have added "some".  You're really putting me on an ego trip with all these compliments .  Real people?  As opposed to what, fake people?  

[chopiabin]

Yes, 6th, you do argue very well, and I respect you much more now that I know that you do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. I also do not believe that homosexuality is purely genetic, but I think there may be some predisposition. Josh, thank you for your comments. My emotions began getting too involved with my posts, and I think at some points I lost all sense of coherence  .

Chop

[Josh B.]

Yes, 6th, you do argue very well, and I respect you much more now that I know that you do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. I also do not believe that homosexuality is purely genetic, but I think there may be some predisposition. Josh, thank you for your comments. My emotions began getting too involved with my posts, and I think at some points I lost all sense of coherence  .

Chop

You are really cute.  Are you sure you're not a girl?  We could be great together, you know . . .

Alas!  Heterosexuality kicks in.

[chopiabin]

Thanks, but truth be told, I am a boy . My boyfriend might also be a little upset, but I am definitely flattered. You really are a nice guy, and I appreciate you coming to my defense.

Chop (blushing)

[DAwud7]

OK here Sorry Chopiabin but science has mapped out the whole human genome and id hate too say it but There is  NO GENE AT ALL anywhere on the human double helix strand of DNA that determines you choosing too love men or women. PRoof that being gay is your own choice, due too enviorment or just your own thoughts or whatever. I persoanlly have no problems with gay men or women let them be i have gay guy friends and would hang out with them, im not gay but they are nice people so i choose them too be my friend, i do tease them, haha but i tease everybody i grew up in a very multi ethnice group as i myself am multi ethnic so that is just how i get along we all make fun of eachother including my gay friends. And let them get married as long as they arent hurting me fine. And Damn 6th Gen come on man U dont engage in sexual pleasures cause yoru not married Damn Might as well die man, Haha. Damn.

[chopiabin]

I still don't think it's a choice. So there's no gene, fine. But even if sexuality is determined by the environment in which you grow up, that does not mean it's a choice. I can not choose to be gay anymore than you can to be straight.

[Beet9]

Of course it's not wrong to be gay, it's just wrong to do, um . . . gay things.  (sorry, i'm conservative - no offense intended)

[chopiabin]

So gay people should never fall i  love or live fulfilling lives? Wow. How would you fell if someone told that, because of who you are, that you should not be allowed to live a fulfilling life? Saying things like that is just like racism to me (which I have also experienced), maybe even worse. But maybe I should just tell my boyfriend of a year and a half that since you disapprove, we have to break up.

By the way, where does this "shouldn't" come from?

[nad]

Of course it's not wrong to be gay, it's just wrong to do, um . . . gay things.  (sorry, i'm conservative - no offense intended)

Excuse me, but can you make even more dumb remarks than that?? Like a heterosexual guy is doing wrong things when behaving macho or whatever. I bet you have even more comments on Madonna for example? Otherwise your logic is pretty contradictionary.

It's ok that you're conservative, but please use ur brain a bit more when making statements like this. No offense intended.

[Josh B.]

Excuse me, but can you make even more dumb remarks than that??
It's ok that you're conservative, but please use ur brain a bit more when making statements like this. No offense intended.

haha truth.

My gay friend who is a theologist was telling me the other day that someone said "it's all right to be gay, as long as you don't practice the gay behaviour."

my friends replied, "you know - i've recongnized myself as being gay for 25 years (his life minus fifteen years), and not once have I EVER had to practice."



josh

[Beet9]

Excuse me, but can you make even more dumb remarks than that?? Like a heterosexual guy is doing wrong things when behaving macho or whatever. I bet you have even more comments on Madonna for example? Otherwise your logic is pretty contradictionary.

It's ok that you're conservative, but please use ur brain a bit more when making statements like this. No offense intended.

You dumb moron,  I can believe whatever the hell I want.  I believe in the traditional family unit.  For thousands of years, children have always had a mother and a father as the heads of the family.  Do you think that nothing is going to change if all of a sudden, kids don't have a mom and a dad, but instead have 2 dads or 2 moms?? Of COURSE it's going to do something.  They're going to get confused, because they NEED that balance in their life!!  You damn democrats don't believe in the importance of the family, so you can just go around worshipping gay life!  

I don't mind gays, I don't even mind gay acts, even though I don't agree with it.   But to tear apart the main unit which this country or any other country was based on, to violate the fundementals of which this country was based on, is selfish and disgusting.  

That is my opinion, and I'm not asking anyone to agree with it.  

[nad]

You dumb moron,  I can believe whatever the hell I want.  I believe in the traditional family unit.  For thousands of years, children have always had a mother and a father as the heads of the family.  Do you think that nothing is going to change if all of a sudden, kids don't have a mom and a dad, but instead have 2 dads or 2 moms?? Of COURSE it's going to do something.  They're going to get confused, because they NEED that balance in their life!!  You damn democrats don't believe in the importance of the family, so you can just go around worshipping gay life!   

That is my opinion, and I'm not asking anyone to agree with it.  

Lol, kinda offended arent you? I don't call you names. Not mature enough to actually read what i wrote instead of putting words into my mouth?

What you're saying here isnt an explanation of your previous statement in case you havent noticed.
You're kinda narrow-minded as well. You're only talking about what you don't approve of homosexuality related to family situations. Ever realized there are just as much heterosexuals who do not make a family? Are you going to address to them as well?

You damn democrats don't believe in the importance of the family, so you can just go around worshipping gay life!

Do i worship gay life? Funny how you seem to 'create' a source with this so-called info in order to strengthen your poor statements. I do respect homosexuals who're trying to live their life.

I don't mind gays, I don't even mind gay acts, even though I don't agree with it.   But to tear apart the main unit which this country or any other country was based on, to violate the fundementals of which this country was based on, is selfish and disgusting.  

You are taking it way out of perspective here. Again, very narrowminded which apparantly is a distinctive keyword to describe your character as well as lack of civil reasoning.

Well i guess it says more about you than it does about me. Calling names and not actualling reading what has been posted, and make more dumb statements says enough.
I shall not waste anymore time on your obvious limited intellectual capacity and the nonsense it brings.

[Beet9]

Lol, kinda offended arent you? I don't call you names. Not mature enough to actually read what i wrote instead of putting words into my mouth?

What you're saying here isnt an explanation of your previous statement in case you havent noticed.
You're kinda narrow-minded as well. You're only talking about what you don't approve of homosexuality related to family situations. Ever realized there are just as much heterosexuals who do not make a family? Are you going to address to them as well?


Do i worship gay life? Funny how you seem to 'create' a source with this so-called info in order to strengthen your poor statements. I do respect homosexuals who're trying to live their life.



You are taking it way out of perspective here. Again, very narrowminded which apparantly is a distinctive aspect of your character.

Well i guess it says more about you than it does about me. Calling names and not actualling reading what has been posted, and make more dumb statements says enough.
I shall not waste anymore time on your obvious limited intellectual capacity and the nonsense it brings.

Excuse me, you moron, but I was not adressing YOU!!
I was talking about today's issues in general.  So while I have a 'limited intellectual capactity' to you, you don't even have brains enough to realize what I'm saying!!!

And you sound like you're grading an essay.  This is a forum - get a life.  

[nad]

Excuse me, you moron, but I was not adressing YOU!!
I was talking about today's issues in general.  So while I have a 'limited intellectual capactity' to you, you don't even have brains enough to realize what I'm saying!!!

And you sound like you're grading an essay.  This is a forum - get a life.  

oh yeh sorry, normally when i quote someone i do not address to that person either .....

This is a forum yes, it doesnt mean you should not speak out properly. With you it is clear it reflects your everyday behaviour. Great excuse anyway, talking 'in general'. Way to go.. How clever and how mature.

I have a life, which isn't as superficial as yours obviously is.  

[chopiabin]

Beet, have you read the other posts in this forum topic? Even when 6 gen were debating very strongly, we never used insults like "moron". You lose a lot of credibility when you resort to name-calling rather than intellectual debate.

Also, what were the foundations this country was built upon? I think they were freedom, independence, and separation of church and state. When I see a president who would like to write hate and inequality into the constitution, it makes me physically sick. Do you honestly think that 2 men or 2 women can not raise children? What about the thousands of orphans who live with only a few caregivers for every few hundred kids? Would you prefer that? I think the only thing that would come of gay marriage is equality, and I do not believe that this would harm society. In fact, more monogamous gay relationships would probably cut down on the instances of AIDS in the gay community. Most gay couples would probably adopt, hence removing a large portion of a major burden on society.

If you could respond rationally, rather than with insults, it would make listening to you a lot easier.

[DAwud7]

Enviorment may help dictate sexual preference but it still involves a choice. My enviorment is poor and i have a bad family background does that mean i must continue this if i wish not too no. Does it mean i must make good of myself if i dont want too no i can be a bum. Humans have choices, sexual preference is one. Me i like Carmen electras butt and breasts and find them attractive , i cant say the same about colin farell or u put in the name of the guy u like. Its a choice this is what makes us humans unique our mind allowing us too make choices. Enviorment cant just lean u in a direction u dont have too take it, i have very bad exapmles in my life as far as father figure and uncles drug users alcoholics, right now this could either push me one way or the other, me im repulsed by drugs and smoking so it pushed me a good way i made a choice and also i do like drinking though matter fact ima go make one now.

[chopiabin]

You are telling me that you could decide to be gay, and then do it? Remember, there is a difference between being gay and simply doing stuff with guys. Yes, I could go and have sex with a girl, but I would still not be attracted to her; therefore, I am not straight -  I just decided to have sex with a girl. Sexual orientation is all about to whom you are attracted, not with whom you have sex. Btw, Colin Farell is not hot, but my bf and Jude Law are.

[Pam_Dunlap]

Howdy.

At the risk of catapulting this already inflammatory discussion into who-knows-where, please consider the following quote from Cristina Cardoze of the Columbia News Service on this topic:

One particular book is helpful in this case. Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance," published in 1999, documents homosexual behavior in more than 450 animal species. The list includes grizzly bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls and even several species of salmon.

"The world is, indeed, teeming with homosexual, bisexual and transgendered creatures of every stripe and feather," Bagemihl writes in the first page of his book. "From the Southeastern Blueberry Bee of the United States to more than 130 different bird species worldwide, the 'birds and the bees,' literally, are queer."

Here's the link, if you're interested:
https://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

So.... flamingos.... think that has anything to do with the term "flaming?"

tee hee.....
Pam

[chopiabin]

Interesting. Do the animals actually prefer the same sex, or is it just a fluke?

[Josh B.]

Really?  Jude Law?  Does your BF resemble Jude Law or Colin Farell more?  Or neither ...

My cat (sub-2) just came in from being outside for an hour when it started raining.  She stood outside my window and cat-screamed until I walked to the door an let her in.  Now she's being wet all over the house.

Sheesh.





go visit here:

https://featurepage.creators.com/washpost.html?next=4&name=lk

it's a great cartoon about the administration's attitude towards to the Constitution - from the Washington Post last month.

josh

[WhiteKnight2k5]

Make abortion illegal again.
We need less gun control.  Criminals will use them even if the rest of us are absolutely defenseless.  Besides, guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do
Uphold the sanctity of marriage.  Let gay couples have domestic partnerships, which have the same tax breaks and legal rights as marriage, but don't tread on thousands of years of human society.  You may think this is irrational, but if that is your view then its important to note that simple biology is not irrational and that if you're right most of America is irrational.  I feel that the death penalty is used too often, but the fact that it is there as an option is a deterrant by itself.  Some people might not fear free room and board for the rest of their life, but death is a very scary punishment.

Conservatism is still upheld by the majority in America; sure, Bush lost a lot of majority support but the conservative platform is what matters.  Don't except Republicans to lose any ground in Congress, especially because of the backlash from the unconstitutional judicial filibuster the democratic minority is engaged in. If anything, they will get even more control in the upcoming elections.

[trunks]

My few thoughts here on sexual orientation:

1. Whether being gay/lesbian is a personal choice (or not) is not the issue. It is the quality of relationship that really matters.

2. Whether being gay/lesbian is 'natural' or 'unnatural' is also not the issue. Simply by being 'unnatural' is no justification for legal or moral condemnation. Hey I'm an owl. Let's say I go to bed at 8 in the morning and wake up at 2 in the afternoon. Would it be unnatural? Very! Would it ever be illegal or immoral? No way! After all who is there in a position to judge who or what is natural or unnatural?

3. Homosexuality and promiscuity are two things that don't necessarily overlap each other. Any attempt to equate them is simply showing lack of study in this matter and would appear as immature as equating heterosexuality to promiscuity.

4. I see nothing 'political', 'immoral' or anything otherwise negative on the gay rights movement. I see, however, people fighting for one of their most basic human rights - the right to express love and physical attraction to another person who only happens to be of the same gender - for the very reason that they are too much fed up already with many people out there who still insist on the 'I shall remain holier than thou' attitude, namely self-righteousness. I could not hesitate to remind any Christian that this is the one sin from the Pharisees and the hypocrites that Jesus the Lord genuinely hated and rebuked consistently. It seems to me that many a Christian are actually getting around the Bible for abusive attack on the gay/lesbian community.

For us Christians, the following sites provide plenty more food for thought. I would strongly advise anybody to read at least twice through these articles before ever launching any attack on the gay/lesbian community:

1. A Letter to Louise - A Biblical Affirmation of Homosexuality (very long article):
https://www.godmademegay.com/Letter.htm
2. Homosexuality and the Church (again very long):
https://www.ubcaustin.org/news/sex_orientation_pres.htm
3. Steps To Recovery From Bible Abuse (many links):
https://www.truluck.com/

Finally, let me quote from Matthew Chapter 7, 1-5:
1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thy own eye?
5. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam that is in thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
- Authorized (King James) Version -

[Pam_Dunlap]

Bravo, Peter! Nicely put.

[chopiabin]

I thought that given the general mood of the forum right now  I would dredge this back up.

[Nightscape]

Interesting... I've been reading through this thread and there's a lot of good information and good arguments here.  As well as a bigot or too.

[Nightscape]

Or three or four!

[Spatula]

We oughta throw matt black (if you guys seen his posts and "moron" rants about his special "piano bible")

Now that would be an interesting stew.

Abortion: no
Gay marriage: no
Death penalty: .... er yes