as well as self righteous, narrow minded and bigoted....

What do you think?.....

Rob The Good wrote: ALL Christians? That's a HUGE generalisation!

You think? Please give examples then.

gdub411 wrote: as well as self righteous, narrow minded and bigoted.... What do you think?.....

I think you're just describing yourself with those words.

Rob The Good wrote: Well take me for example, I had a Christian upbringing, but I don't rant about "how Genesis dictates" this or that...I don't think Homosexuals are "wrong in the eyes of God" blah blah blah...Everyone has the right to be happy. That's not to say that there aren't Christians who are anti-gay...there are a lot. A lot of people use religion to disguise prejudices. The "born again" attitude that God hates Gays is actually a perversion of the Christian message, which is essentially: Love ...in all its shapes and forms! What do you think?

I really am disgusted with some christian ignorance.. For example: Putting gold and crowns on Jezus and Maria.. They also have to know that Jezus never had any bad intentions with ANYONE, with his death he asked for forgiveness for those who did this to him.. Well just take a little look now, some Christians are pointing their fingers now to others.. Totally wrong and misunderstood!

It's great to see people do what they really want to do! These christians don't.. They all have bad influence in each other trying to find faith. They are looking in the opposite direction! Hate will not bring you closer to christ. Especially unacceptance! I think it's great what you do Gdub, being what you are! If the whole world didn't pretend to be someone else.. it would be much better here!

Logos wrote: gdub411 wrote: as well as self righteous, narrow minded and bigoted.... What do you think?..... I think you're just describing yourself with those words.

Perhaps I am, maybe that is my intent.

Velvetclown wrote: No gdub411 you´re not, you´re just a pain in the ass

Yes...but a loveable pain in the ass.

I was reading about Dante's Infernal...he describes hell as having 9 layers. The lower the layer the more you get tormented for your sins. He had placed homosexuals and people who commit suicide into the 9th layer(subject to suffer Satan's greatest torments while the murderers were on the 8th. Apparently murderers aren't the dregs and scourge of humanity...it is the gays.

Another fine analysis from a "loving" christian!

Gdub:

I think you err in choosing your word - homophobes - which literally means "fear of homosexuals."  Clearly, few people, if any, are "fearful" of homosexuals, unless the word is broadened to include "fear" of their influence in society.  Note that I am making no moral judgment here; I am simply pointing out that the word "homophobe" is a misnomer, and is often used by the gay community as an "activist" word which actually serves to further "divide" them from "the mainstream."

Christians believe in a particular moral doctrine, yes.  But even this is misunderstood - and often deliberately misinterpreted - by the gay community.  Let me make two comments on this regard, the first of which requires a brief primer.

Christians believe that each of us has a "soul," which is eternal.  That soul "inhabits" our mortal, temporal bodies for approximately 90 years, after which it is released to be judged by God, and lives "in eternity" in either "heaven" or "hell."  Note that the correct meaning of "hell" is not what most people think - fire, damnation, etc. (which is reserved for very few) - but "eternal separation from God."  Thus, we need to consider two "spheres" here: the temporal/mortal, and the spiritual/eternal.

God loves every single human being, regardless of their moral or other failings.  And Jesus preached that unconditional love, forgiveness, compassion, etc.  However, in the "Christian construct," there are two specific expectations put on us.  First, that we admit that we are "sinners" (that we fail morally and otherwise), and "repent" for those "sins" (moral and other failings) by asking forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice.  Second, that we make at least some effort to live as Christ did - to be "Christ-like" - by (i) practicing the main precepts of Christ's ministry (love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, truth), and (ii) at least attempting to avoid "sin," especially conscious, deliberate sin.

However, the unconditional love of God and Christ is only applicable to our temporal lives, in as much as there is no "judgment" during our temporal lives.  But there will be a "judgment" for each person as our souls leave the temporal world for the eternal one, and that judgment will be based on our faith (in Christ) and our "works."

I have previously used the example of the adulteress who was about to be stoned when Jesus came along and told her accusers "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."  And I pointed out that it did not end there.  Jesus then asks her "Woman, where are thy accusers?"  She replies, "They are gone."  And Jesus says, "Neither do I accuse you.  Now go, and sin no more."

"Sin no more."  Note that Jesus did not let her off the hook: He forgave her for the sin that brought her to that moment, but made it clear that He did not expect her to remain in sin, because from that point on, her sin would be conscious and deliberate, and not just a "moral failing."

Which brings me to my second point.

There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a "gay gene," any more than there is a "serial killer" gene or a "wife abuser" gene or an "alcoholic" gene or a "drug abuser" gene, etc.  (I am not comparing being gay to serial killing, wife abusing, etc., simply making a point.)  Thus, homosexuality is learned behavior.  It is not "innate": no one is "born gay."  And even if the circumstances that cause one to become gay occur in very early childhood - and are thus deeply ingrained - it remains "learned," and can therefore be "unlearned," no matter how difficult or painful that may be.

That is why Christians consider homosexuality a "sin"; because it is a moral failure, even if it is perhaps the earliest learned, most deeply ingrained one, and thus the hardest to undo.  And just as Jesus told the adulteress "Go, and sin no more," God does not expect you to "remain in sin."

Thus, there is no conflict or hypocrisy in Christians who love and accept gays, and yet believe that gays will be "eternally separated from God" if they "remain in sin" and make no effort to change.  It comes from the understanding of the difference between the temporal world - in which Christians are expected to live "Christ-like" lives, including love, forgiveness, compassion, etc. for all people, regardless of their moral and other failings - and the spiritual/eternal world that comes after.

I realize this is little "comfort" to you, or to other gay members here.  However, as noted, I am simply explaining "how it works" within the "Christian construct."  You are, of course, free to reject that construct, or find it exclusivist, narrow-minded, etc.  I simply wanted to explain how it is that Christians - even "good" (non-judgmental, non-condemning) Christians - can, on the one hand, truly love and accept gay people - without a hint of "homophobia" - yet on the other hand believe that, unless gay people make some effort to change, they will be eternally separated from God on "judgment day."

Peace.

maani wrote: There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a "gay gene," any more than there is a "serial killer" gene or a "wife abuser" gene or an "alcoholic" gene or a "drug abuser" gene, etc.  (I am not comparing being gay to serial killing, wife abusing, etc., simply making a point.)  Thus, homosexuality is learned behavior.  It is not "innate": no one is "born gay."  And even if the circumstances that cause one to become gay occur in very early childhood - and are thus deeply ingrained - it remains "learned," and can therefore be "unlearned," no matter how difficult or painful that may be. That is why Christians consider homosexuality a "sin"; because it is a moral failure, even if it is perhaps the earliest learned, most deeply ingrained one, and thus the hardest to undo.  And just as Jesus told the adulteress "Go, and sin no more," God does not expect you to "remain in sin."

Who has decided that feelings are something tought? Your feelings with someones loss for example, are something you can't teach to someone.. Your love for someone is just the same.. If that love is someone of your own sex then it's tought and a sin? There is another thing I have to mention: you're comparing this: "serial killer", "wife abuser", "alcoholic", "drug abuser" etc. with being homosexual..
Isn't it a big difference that an serial killer, wife abuser, alcoholic, drug abuser etc does something BAD to themselfs AND to others. They know that what they're doing is WRONG. Gay people are just loving someone! And if you're trying to say that gay people are bad because they're do something wrong to their parents etc. it's then again ACCEPTANCE!

maani wrote: Gdub: I think you err in choosing your word - homophobes - which literally means "fear of homosexuals."  Clearly, few people, if any, are "fearful" of homosexuals, unless the word is broadened to include "fear" of their influence in society.  Note that I am making no moral judgment here; I am simply pointing out that the word "homophobe" is a misnomer, and is often used by the gay community as an "activist" word which actually serves to further "divide" them from "the mainstream." Christians believe in a particular moral doctrine, yes.  But even this is misunderstood - and often deliberately misinterpreted - by the gay community.  Let me make two comments on this regard, the first of which requires a brief primer. Christians believe that each of us has a "soul," which is eternal.  That soul "inhabits" our mortal, temporal bodies for approximately 90 years, after which it is released to be judged by God, and lives "in eternity" in either "heaven" or "hell."  Note that the correct meaning of "hell" is not what most people think - fire, damnation, etc. (which is reserved for very few) - but "eternal separation from God."  Thus, we need to consider two "spheres" here: the temporal/mortal, and the spiritual/eternal. God loves every single human being, regardless of their moral or other failings.  And Jesus preached that unconditional love, forgiveness, compassion, etc.  However, in the "Christian construct," there are two specific expectations put on us.  First, that we admit that we are "sinners" (that we fail morally and otherwise), and "repent" for those "sins" (moral and other failings) by asking forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice.  Second, that we make at least some effort to live as Christ did - to be "Christ-like" - by (i) practicing the main precepts of Christ's ministry (love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, truth), and (ii) at least attempting to avoid "sin," especially conscious, deliberate sin. However, the unconditional love of God and Christ is only applicable to our temporal lives, in as much as there is no "judgment" during our temporal lives.  But there will be a "judgment" for each person as our souls leave the temporal world for the eternal one, and that judgment will be based on our faith (in Christ) and our "works." I have previously used the example of the adulteress who was about to be stoned when Jesus came along and told her accusers "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."  And I pointed out that it did not end there.  Jesus then asks her "Woman, where are thy accusers?"  She replies, "They are gone."  And Jesus says, "Neither do I accuse you.  Now go, and sin no more." "Sin no more."  Note that Jesus did not let her off the hook: He forgave her for the sin that brought her to that moment, but made it clear that He did not expect her to remain in sin, because from that point on, her sin would be conscious and deliberate, and not just a "moral failing." Which brings me to my second point. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a "gay gene," any more than there is a "serial killer" gene or a "wife abuser" gene or an "alcoholic" gene or a "drug abuser" gene, etc.  (I am not comparing being gay to serial killing, wife abusing, etc., simply making a point.)  Thus, homosexuality is learned behavior.  It is not "innate": no one is "born gay."  And even if the circumstances that cause one to become gay occur in very early childhood - and are thus deeply ingrained - it remains "learned," and can therefore be "unlearned," no matter how difficult or painful that may be. That is why Christians consider homosexuality a "sin"; because it is a moral failure, even if it is perhaps the earliest learned, most deeply ingrained one, and thus the hardest to undo.  And just as Jesus told the adulteress "Go, and sin no more," God does not expect you to "remain in sin." Thus, there is no conflict or hypocrisy in Christians who love and accept gays, and yet believe that gays will be "eternally separated from God" if they "remain in sin" and make no effort to change.  It comes from the understanding of the difference between the temporal world - in which Christians are expected to live "Christ-like" lives, including love, forgiveness, compassion, etc. for all people, regardless of their moral and other failings - and the spiritual/eternal world that comes after. I realize this is little "comfort" to you, or to other gay members here.  However, as noted, I am simply explaining "how it works" within the "Christian construct."  You are, of course, free to reject that construct, or find it exclusivist, narrow-minded, etc.  I simply wanted to explain how it is that Christians - even "good" (non-judgmental, non-condemning) Christians - can, on the one hand, truly love and accept gay people - without a hint of "homophobia" - yet on the other hand believe that, unless gay people make some effort to change, they will be eternally separated from God on "judgment day." Peace.

....Finally I got your point of view Maani. For a long time I have noticed you have dodged this issue. The point of view you expressed is exactly what I expected. I consider myself a christian in spite of my sins. I really do not believe what I wrote about christians at the top of this thread...not all anyway. The goal of this thread has been achieved.

Peace.

hopelevre wrote: it is impossible to argue with those that refuse the truth...the negative thing is the effects teh proliferation of this subculture will have on humanity

are you talking to yourself? to maani? wo knows wich is right?

maani- just wondering about a few of your points. You state that homobobia is a misnomer because people aren't actually afraid of homosexuals...perhaps 'threatened' would be a better way to put it, and I'm pretty confident that feeling is accurate for many, many people. In most cases, people are indeed afraid of something they don't understand (whether it's gays, jews, blacks, Harley riders, snakes, spiders, or death).

And as far as the 'genetic vs. learned' debate goes, it's most often a preamble to dismiss homosexuality on the grounds that it is somehow unnatural (despite the evidence that homosexuality occurs regularly in the animal world and has been with mankind since the beginning). Not every society, historically or geographically, views variations in sexuality as morally incorrect...western puritanism has given the topic undue prominence in the moral realm (i.e., sex is fundamentally wrong, but the variations are even more wrong ).

Additionally, there is (to the best of our scientific knowledge) an alcoholic gene...most likely a combination of genetic factors, especially the DRD2 dopamine receptor variant, which greatly increases the likelihood of developing alcoholism according to several studies. It doesn't negate freewill, but it makes it more likely to put one at risk of becoming a serious drunk (as having the genetic predisposition for being very tall is more likely to make one become a better basketball player).

Ok,Gdub.You are not going to Hell, but then again you are not going to Heaven.

An eternity in Limbo after a lifetime akimbo.

Let's face it none of us is going anywhere except back to where we came from.The dust of stars,that's all we are.Deal with it.

goose wrote: I think the British church is several shades more liberal? I couldn't be sure, though.

In some Church of England circles homosexuality is compulsory, or so I've heard

gdub411 wrote: Rob The Good wrote: ALL Christians? That's a HUGE generalisation! You think? Please give examples then.

Example:  Me

Velvetclown wrote: Threefates : You´re not a Christian ...you´re the Lady Of The Lake

You´re not a Christian ...you enjoy sex,remember!

Bad girl,bad,bad,girl!

threefates wrote: Ahh come on... thats probably Maani's favorite position!!

go girl !

DallasBryan wrote: when it comes to homosexuality for me! I am a basketball center, I just block that shot! We all have faults, homosexuality is an interesting subject, in that I dont think anyone is born anything but hetrosexual. For whatever reason someone chooses to cross that line, you are into spiritual territory now. If you open the door(sexual act) then you are allowing spiritual control of a portion of your life or character. Only healing and spiritual intravention are able to close that door. Many so called ministers are not equipped for this service as it requires supernatural power(maybe laying on of hands by someone truly baptised in the Holy Spirit) not a seminar scholar of the word, but most egos cant accept this.

Separated at birth????

Well DB... since they found the gene in the DNA strand that denotes homosexuality about 3 years ago, I guess you're a little wrong about that...

Now how this correlates with the Gay Marriage thread. Maani's point of view on homosexuality shows why it was so easy to defend Crimson Princes original...Queers and Faggots...I hate them...how about you? thread. While I will venture to guess Maani doesn't hate gays, he certainly doesn't agree with the lifestyle  whatsoever.

To each their own. I just wanted him to express his point of view on this for quite some time rather than ignoring the issue or dodging it whenever it came up.

My in-a-nutshell stance on homosexuals:

I will not approve but I will accept.

gdub411 wrote: as well as self righteous, narrow minded and bigoted....

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

utah_man wrote: gdub411 wrote: as well as self righteous, narrow minded and bigoted.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_bait

Not my intention at all...I had a purpose..I achieved it....Read the thread before accusing me of being a troll

gdub411 wrote: utah_man wrote: gdub411 wrote: as well as self righteous, narrow minded and bigoted.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_bait Not my intention at all...I had a purpose..I achieved it....Read the thread before accusing me of being a troll

A nice troll

It was a trollish action, to get under someones chin and provoke a reaction, or take an extremus stand point and see what happens.

I am a christian (atheistic type) and i am not homophobic, au contraire I'm not afraid of some whoossies

JrKASperov wrote: And lastly, a nice logical argument found somewhere that proves it is not genetic: 'if homosexuality is genetic then why does it seem to be exploding across the population when its very existence should remove it from the genetic landscape. I'm not even sure what you mean there.  Why should its very existence remove it.  In this world, nature generally still rules out unless its medically dangerous not to.  And homosexuality is not exploding across the population any more now that it always has been.  Its just less dangerous to admit to it these days.  Where do you people get this crap!   Homosexuals do not seek to mate with the other sex of the species and therefore do not produce offspring that can pass on this homosexual gene. And if no one with the gene produces offspring, the gene should dissipate until it is only a rare occurrence. Huh?? Are you kidding??  Anyone can carry a homosexual gene.. and you don't have to be homosexual to carry one.  Children with down syndrome come by that genetically.. and most times neither parent has down syndrome...  Also plenty of homosexual men are having children..  But recent evidence suggests that there are more and more homosexuals in the country and in the world. This seems to me to be overwhelming evidence that folks are actually choosing homosexuality. The alternative would be that we are experiencing a genetic mutation of global proportions that is causing this homosexual gene to appear out of the blue.'

As the mother of a gay child, I can certainly tell you that he did not choose it and it was not from some earlier childhood trauma.  It is just him.  Because he came from an accepting household.. in a gay friendly town, he confronted this earlier than most and we dealt with it together when he first entered his teens. 

So is it hard for you people to accept this because it means that God made them this way... or because it means you can't blame them for being this way??

That's a strange argument that I've heard once or twice now: that homosexuality is wrong because if everyone did it, the species would become extinct...by extension, abstinence is equally wrong (all those immoral Catholic priests who chose their calling, for instance). Dating someone unable to have children is obviously immoral, as is leaving an abusive (but fertile) relationship...and of course one can immediately discard oral sex, anal sex, masturbation...not to mention the venal sin of coitus interruptus; I believe my parents and college roommate are going to hell because they occasionally interrupted my goal of sustaining human life on the planet!

For reason's sake, folks...try a little harder than that. Yeah, human beings reproduce sexually- we all know that. But don't pretend you have sex simply because it's serving mankind's greater purpose.

But it's all moot anyway, because nobody enters the discussion open to reason, and nobody ever changes their mind on the subject due solely to logic. If it were a logical matter, nobody would be homosexual- because it's a pretty hard life, despite how "permissive" or "tolerant" some believe society has become. There's only two or three people on the forums who can directly attest to that; the rest of us are just approaching the subject secondhand- at best.

threefates wrote: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8332896&dopt=Abstract - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&a mp;a mp;db=PubMed&list_uids=8332896&dopt=Abstract

I'm not even sure what you mean there.  Why should its very existence remove it.  In this world, nature generally still rules out unless its medically dangerous not to.  And homosexuality is not exploding across the population any more now that it always has been.  Its just less dangerous to admit to it these days.  Where do you people get this crap!

It's existence should remove itself because gay couples don't make kids. Even if we take into account the possibility that more people are coming out for it and may have been making children because of bisexuality or being respressed, it still means that logically, the number of gay people should be in decline. Especially when this gene is resessive, as stated in the argument below.

Huh?? Are you kidding??  Anyone can carry a homosexual gene.. and you don't have to be homosexual to carry one.  Children with down syndrome come by that genetically.. and most times neither parent has down syndrome...  Also plenty of homosexual men are having children..

As the mother of a gay child, I can certainly tell you that he did not choose it and it was not from some earlier childhood trauma.  It is just him.  Because he came from an accepting household.. in a gay friendly town, he confronted this earlier than most and we dealt with it together when he first entered his teens. So is it hard for you people to accept this because it means that God made them this way... or because it means you can't blame them for being this way??

I have not read everything on this thread because I am a bit tired of these theological arguments. I will only speak of male homosexuality in this post.

However on the homophobia, I have a few things to say. I have a few friends who are homos and you would never know it by looking at them or hearing them. You could swear that these guys are absolutely normal but just fell in love with a man instead of a woman. Homos such as those are absolutely no problems and I respect them as much as heteros (I respect the vast majority of gays). I respect also the fact that they are to form a couple and a good deal of European countries have accepted that the have the same advantages as married couples sometimes even allowing them to marry in city hall. I am a little wary of them being allowed to adopt or bring up children. The Church weddings are the least of my concerns (I am an atheist) but these wedding rites were done for matrimony and founding families; so I find the gay community's claim to marry in them churches rather nul and uselessly provocative. It is a bit wanting to breal things just to break them.

What I have problems with are all those homos ACTING the stereotype, playing transvestite, acting precious and artsy-fartsy, portraying openly sexual attitudes out of provocation. Those gays purposely derange heteros by unnecessarily fronting feminine attitudes  thus provoking an empathy towards them. And one thing most of women forget, Gays do not like women (dare I say they despise them), and by adopting this feminine attitudes, they are actually ridiculizing women who actually think that those gays are actually nice guys because they are in touch with their feminine sides. A good deal of those people are people obsessed with their dicks and have very disturbed sex lives (A very somber scene in the film Les Nuits Fauves by this artist Cyrille Collard who was dying of aids at the time describing all of those males just jacking each other off in large committee - some fifty characters in the same room -  but never engaging in lovemaking or  sodomy) and  I would suggest that their frustrations are problematic enough that they could be classified as "deviants" (not my words , but right now I cannot think of another word unless abnormal) by conservative people whether they are religious or not. Those behaviours are direct reasons of homophobia.

Of course, apart from that category are the gays who feel trapped in "the other sex body" are really in great distress but instead of going transvestite, I would advise them to go transsexual (easier and less costly said and done) and maybe find their peace.

DallasBryan wrote: when it comes to homosexuality for me! I am a basketball center, I just block that shot! We all have faults, homosexuality is an interesting subject, in that I dont think anyone is born anything but hetrosexual. For whatever reason someone chooses to cross that line, you are into spiritual territory now. If you open the door(sexual act) then you are allowing spiritual control of a portion of your life or character. Only healing and spiritual intravention are able to close that door. Many so called ministers are not equipped for this service as it requires supernatural power(maybe laying on of hands by someone truly baptised in the Holy Spirit) not a seminar scholar of the word, but most egos cant accept this.

Why are you repeating yourself Dallas?

BTW I think the laying on of hands is the root of the problem. leave your hands above the blanket is what I've learned

threefates:

In addition to JrKASperov's cites and position, did you bother to actually read the cite you provided?  Even that study found that there is only a "possibility" of a genetic marker for homosexuality in a "portion" of the population - hardly a resounding argument for the absolute existence of a "gay gene."

Peace.

IDIOTS! feelings aren't for study!!

Sean Trane wrote: What I have problems with are all those homos ACTING the stereotype, playing transvestite, acting precious and artsy-fartsy, portraying openly sexual attitudes out of provocation. Those gays purposely derange heteros by unnecessarily fronting feminine attitudes  thus provoking an empathy towards them.

I agree entirely, I find camp homosexuality incredibly irritating - but then, I find stereotypes and clichés of virtually any type irritating.

edit: hang on, "[gays] don't like women" is a bit of a sweeping statement, isn't it? do you have any evidence for this?

maani wrote: threefates: In addition to JrKASperov's cites and position, did you bother to actually read the cite you provided?  Even that study found that there is only a "possibility" of a genetic marker for homosexuality in a "portion" of the population - hardly a resounding argument for the absolute existence of a "gay gene." Peace.

Yes, I did read it Maani... and I also read all the articles coming out of the Gay Men's Health Crisis brochures a few years ago about the find.  They were worried that this would lead to couples aborting children that may be found to have the gene.  Its a scarey issue, but after reading certain remarks on this thread... pretty likely to happen.

JrKASperov wrote: Look at the date and compare with my articles: yours is from Science. 1993 Jul 16;261(5119):321-7. Date doesn't make much difference... many christian and religious researchers are trying to stamp out this find.  Probably for the same reason you are. JrKASperov wrote: It's existence should remove itself because gay couples don't make kids. Even if we take into account the possibility that more people are coming out for it and may have been making children because of bisexuality or being respressed, it still means that logically, the number of gay people should be in decline. Especially when this gene is resessive, as stated in the argument below. First, I have 3 gay couples in my building with children.. so I don't understand why you would think that being gay means you can't have children...  And they aren't bisexual or repressed. And gay men can have children that carry on the gene for a few generations before showing up again... Just like twins... or eye color.. or race.. Huh?? Are you kidding??  Anyone can carry a homosexual gene.. and you don't have to be homosexual to carry one.  Children with down syndrome come by that genetically.. and most times neither parent has down syndrome...  Also plenty of homosexual men are having children..   You have two types of genes, dominant ones and resessive ones. A gene is either one or the other. If it is dominant, people with the gene always are gay(this is certainly not the case, else there would only be gay parents and children, while we find not gay parents and children as well). If it is resessive, one who carries it does not act gay. The only way to come around this is having two gay genes, which drastically reduces the chance of gayness. Something which certainly does not agree with the rather large amount of gay people in this world. They should be about the same number as Down syndrome people while they are certainly more. I live in a somewhat gay community here in NYC... I know plenty of gays who have gay siblings, relatives.. who's parents come out of the closet once their kids grow up... [quote]As the mother of a gay child, I can certainly tell you that he did not choose it and it was not from some earlier childhood trauma.  It is just him.  Because he came from an accepting household.. in a gay friendly town, he confronted this earlier than most and we dealt with it together when he first entered his teens. So is it hard for you people to accept this because it means that God made them this way... or because it means you can't blame them for being this way?? As the mother of a gay child, you have no special authority to call him 'just that way' whatsoever. Like Maani pointed out and the posted articles(especially compared to your OLD article), it's a choice.

Uhh yes I do.  Cause not only have I spotted the markers over the years in him, but in most of his gay friends also.  You have to live it to know it.  You live with a gay child for a few years... then come back and tell me something..

hopelevre wrote: yea im sure Gay Men's Health Crisis has no reason to distort the facts....great source

No, I guess worrying about an issue like that is just a way of getting attention..

hopelevre wrote: an alcoholic can have the "gene" i.e. be predisposed toward alcoholism...and nevertheless not become an alcoholic if he makes the choice not to drink

ok.. then lets consider this ... what if homosexuality was the normal way of being...

Think of your sexuality, how easy do you think it would be for you to make a decision to change...

Give me a break, you guys remind me of that Star Trek episode where the guys were half black and half white... and where still biased against each other because of which side of their body was black and which was white....

hopelevre wrote: its so much easier to say the kids just that way than to face the issue of whether or not your own role in his environmental conditioning may have played a part in the homosexual result...kudos to you for taking the high road

Yeh, like you have a clue!!

There is no high road.. there is no low road... there's just the way it is!

Sean, hopelevre, et al...of course you've considered the possibility that the antipathy and dysfunction you refer to is the product of repressive or outright violent attitudes towards homosexuals? I know I might be a little touchy if every day I was faced with examples of people who'd prefer that I didn't exist (and who formulate various 'scientific' claims to back up their predjudice). In which case, the exaggeration of camp stereotypes would seem to be an extremely positive response...a refusal to disappear and a comment on the flexibility of personal identity. Not all social gains are made via violent protest and political debate.

I'm a little disappointed with the responses to this topic (not to mention the failure to respond to some of the points I've made...but maybe they're not as compelling as I thought they were  )It's understandable that it got bogged down in the "nature vs. nurture" context, but it seems that the majority view is subtly negative (the subtlety likely the result of awareness of appropriateness to the forum as well as fallout from the politically correct era). What I hear most of you saying is "I'm willing to acknowledge that gays exist, and I won't be mean to them, but I'd be just as happy if they all went away or stopped being gay."

hopelevre wrote: two:many cases have been shown of a homosexual admitting it was not genetic, but environmental

What! So because he's gay he's automatically an expert on his genetics? I'm straight, but I have no idea why, it's just the way I am. I couldn't choose to be gay, and if I were gay I'm pretty sure I couldn't choose to be straight either. I doubt it'll ever be proven entirely genetic or entirely environmental, since I believe (as with almost everything else) it's a mixture of the two. And if it isn't so what? The world would be a happier place if people accepted all kinds of love instead of considering it some kind of (in)curable disease!

hopelevre wrote: goose- how about a young boy who was sexually molested by a catholic priest and is now a homosexual? there are many instances of this...you are saying all these boys were going to be gay anywway? that is ludicrous

Well, I think those boys seduced the priests, and where gay before that. It's common knowledge those gay-boys shake their butt quite seductively to every man.

I feel pity for those innocent priests that where so obviously framed by the devil.

Metropolis wrote: James Lee wrote:  (and who formulate various 'scientific' claims to back up their predjudice). Scientific claims do not back up prejudice, and in fact the studies that have shown there to be something of a genetic component (I am not for a minute suggesting that this is the only, or even the major component, environment and upbringing have an extremely important and complex part to play) should in fact remove prejudice as it shows that being prejudiced against gays is no different to being prejudiced against blacks and that homophobes should be held in the same esteem as racists. Also why does everyone think that when someone suggests that a gene has a part to play in something that that someone is instantly dismissing all environmental factors, they are not, and all geneticists understand the imprtance environment has to play.

That's why I put '"scientific' in quotes- there's a vast difference between fact and interpretation. It seem to me that unfortunately people usually have an opinion first and then try to fit the available scientific knowledge to support that opinion (even some real scientists, who should know better). The genetic debate about homosexuality has that same shady undertone that characterizes the science behind the idea that black people are genetically better at sports.

hopelevre: do you believe that homosexuality is so compelling that the entire human race will eventually choose it over procreation?

Whilst whether someone is gay or straight is a non-issue to me.
I either like them or I dont.
However,the way I see it is this:buggery would never be seen as acceptable sexual practice by me.If there were two holes up there,one for evacuating waste and another for pleasure,so be it.But there aint.Of course,I know that heterosexual couples also practise it,but that doesnt make it any less perverted.

Believe me-I am no prude or homophobe (although to some my previous statement might mark me out as one.)But I do find it distasteful.

But it isnt doing me any harm and as long as it is performed by consenting adults I certainly do not see it as a corrupting influence-so,so what?

I am not defined by my heterosexuality and neither should gays be defined by their sexuality,but that's another issue.I'm not really for tax breaks based on in which hole one places one's manhood.

But as far as the fun bit:

Whatever turns you on. Just dont expect me to join in.

Metropolis:

You keep mentioning this "75%/75%" study, yet you have provided no support.  However, even if such a study does exist - and even given the study cited by threefates - this only makes two studies that show a "possibility" of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality in a "portion" of the population.  However, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of studies that lead to the opposite conclusion; jrKASperov has already offered three, and I will be happy to provide at least a dozen later tonight when I get the chance to pull them up.

This is called the "scientific method."  (And this, coming from a minister! )  If a study is not "reproducible," then it ultimately fails.  And it is clear that the one or two "gay gene" studies did not stand either the test of time, peer review or "reproducibility."

As an aside, there are also hundreds of studies in psychology that show that homosexuality is, if not solely, than overwhelmingly the product of "learned behavior" (infant and/or early childhood traumas, circumstances, experiences, environments, etc.) - even if that behavior is "learned" at such an early age that it is not "cognizant" behavior but rather "subconscious" behavior.  And, as an aside to threefates, many of these studies have shown that even "accepting" parents who believe that no such conditions existed for their child to "learn" that behavior are ultimately in denial about their own role in it.

Peace.

drbr wrote: How can you honestly believe sexual orientation is a choice? Your sexual orientation is based on your feelings and desires, and those feelings cannot be chosen. Ask any gay person if he or she has made a choice. Ask any straight person if he or she could choose not to love people of the opposite sex. The majority will tell you that there ain't no choice. And it doesn't matter wheter there is a "gay gene", because even if there was none it wouldn't make it less of a choice. You cannot change a person's feelings. Pretending to be something you're not in a desperate attempt to be "normal" will probably lead to depression. I know there are those who claim to have been "converted," but I think they where really bisexual or are just fooling themselves. You'll just have to accept that people are gay and that it's not their choice, that they cannot be converted and that they're here to stay. It's not against "nature" because they're gay by nature. It's God's will.

I agree totally...

Reed Lover wrote: Believe me-I am no prude or homophobe (although to some my previous statement might mark me out as one.)But I do find it distasteful.

Personally I find the mention sex in regard to you distasteful....

Isn't it strange how I can start a thread about one thing and it always turns into a religeous debate.

Anyways..

thanks Threefates, James, Velvetclown, Hangedman and I suppose even Reed Lover( the bugger comment has me a tad miffed but hey...) for your support.

and anyone else i may have missed unintentionly...like you Tuxxy!

Metropolis wrote: I'm in your corner also (don't know if my attempts at scientific reasoning clouded that in some way)

Yes...I saw that...just forgot to write your name.