I’m going to try to answer this one, although it might be wise to defer to Esprix…but if I’m wrong, I’m sure he’ll correct me.
A simple question: How can my parents who have blue eyes, have a green eyed child? If two people who are right handed mate, how is it genetically possible for the child to be left handed? If two people who have straight hair mate, how is it genetically possible for the child to have kinky or curly hair?
What’s a normal person? Heterosexual? As I previously stated, it’s possible for men and women who are gay to have hetero sex. If that happens and a child results from that, that child has the possibility of being gay, due to its parent’s genes. Even if that child is not gay, it has the possiblity of passing down genes that cause homosexuality. Just like my eyes are green, but due to my parents genes, my children’s eyes can be blue.
I don’t know what gene causes homosexuality, and I don’t know if anybody knows for sure. But I know that Esprix will be more than happy to post scientific and medical proof, or at least strong evidence, that supports homosexuality is NOT a choice. You either are or you aren’t. Or, better then that, go over to the “Ask The Gay Guy” threads.
Of course, if you are closed minded and have no room in your limited life for science, then none of this will do you any good.
Well, another sleepless night, so I got up and started putting together my new waterbed. All that activity made me tired, so I stopped to rest and read and discovered an idiot.
How do two normal people, upon mating, produce a retarded child? How do two normal people produce a child with a known genetic disease? How do they produce a normal child? If they have 3 children, how is it that one will succeed in life and business, one will succeed in life but be a klutz in business and the last may turn out to be a bum? How can the three be so different?
Genetics, my man, genetics. If your great, great grandmomma mated with a Black man and bore a white child, that child would still carry Black genes. Down along his or her line, White children might be produced but there is the possibility that you, as a direct descendant, could produce a Black child because you carry the genetic material. (Years ago, there was a community around New Jersey where Black people lived called Jackson Whites, because they had White ancestors. They had various shades of skin from Jett to cream, some Black men and women had bright blue eyes and straight hair.)
Genetics produce homosexuals and lesbians 90% (in my opinion) of the time. Some men find homosexuals threatening and I don’t hold very well with the popular though that such men are latent homosexuals themselves and denying it. I suspect it is {A}natural aversion and {B} intimidation. To a heterosexual male who dislikes/fears homosexuals, he probably thinks they want to ‘do’ him and that act is considered dominance and most heterosexual males consider such dominance in sex as ‘castrating,’ that is, robbing them of their male image. Genetics makes them feel this way – along with social pressures and influences. Men tend to get aggressive over sex.
So shagadelicmysteryman, what thoughts and inhibitions concerning homosexuals have you had lately? They are here. They have been with us forever. No doubt nature has a reason for producing homosexuals and lesbians just as she has a reason for producing various skin colors and eye shapes.
Did you know that the Spartans – the great macho warring nation of the past which valued war above all else – had an entire division of fighters made up of homosexuals and they were one of the most feared segments around? The reason was the Spartans let lovers be together in the division, and when a warriors’ lover was killed or injured, the survivor fought madly for revenge. They gained reputation as tough, savage, much feared fighters.
I agree that I made a logical error in addressing the idea of divine blessing for hetero vs gay unions instead of addressing Chaim’s post. My bad. If a religion says homosexuality is wrong, and you stifle your urges to please God, that would be praiseworthy in the context of that religion. In the context of common sense, it’s sad and destructive.
I still stand by my original contention. I want to add a few points.
I fail to understand that if Christians can claim God is love, and if they can claim divine sanction for heterosexual union, why is it “outlandish” for a gay man to claim the same? Esprix, is the M.C.C. wrong to claim that God blesses their unions? I would never tell a gay Christian that love for his or her partner is unworthy of God’s blessings. In no way did I imply or state that all feelings and inclinations come from God, (heck, I’m an atheist) but nobody can tell me homosexual love is inferior to hetero love, or unworthy of being blessed by Jesus, Zeus, or Jah.
Prism 02 wrote, “That was where they created a huge rat city, populated it lightly and then, following society, over crowded it, restricted access to food, water, housing and space and discovered among other things,that a percentage of the rats turned homosexual. The rats developed most of the psychosis seen in human society.”
Calling homosexuality a psychosis is offensive and wrong. Homosexual behavior has been observed in many species of lower animals in uncrowded conditions.
I am also tired of people comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, homicide, or other destructive impulses. Homosexuality is a normal variation of the human sexual impulse. It is an orientation, not a sin or a disease.
The debate over changing orientations reminds me of how left-handedness is punished in Korean schools. Teachers can make left-handed kids use their right hands, but they can’t make the children write well. Left-handed kids forced to use their right hands write jerkily and poorly, no matter how hard they try.
I disagree. Just because you believe that stifling one’s sexual impulses serves no spiritual purpose doesn’t mean that it’s sad and destructive from a “common sense” perspective. In my opinion, anyone who is able to forego short-term pleasure for what he perceives as long-term gain is a mature individual who brings the benefits of that maturity to society. Now you may not agree that what this person sees as long-term gain exists, and therefore you may feel he’s giving up his short-term pleasure for nothing. But that is your opinion on the specific matter of homosexual sex vs. spirituality. Do you disagree on the general concept that one who is able to conquer his impulses for the sake of attaining a long-term goal is more mature than one who is not?
CMKeller wrote," Do you disagree on the general concept that one who is able to conquer his impulses for the sake of attaining a long-term goal is more mature than one who is not?"
Of course, I agree on the benefits of delaying short-term gratification for long-term gains. Instead of buying a new car, I put that money in a mutual fund for my retirement. Instead of eating a pizza today, I’ll have a salad for long-term health and attractiveness. Those are concrete and rational long-term goals. What benefit is there in denying one’s sexual and romantic urges for some mythical reward from a deity? I can calculate compound interest and I can demonstrate that eating healthily will benefit me. Can you give me Heaven’s address? Can you show conclusive evidence that God will beam on me if I cease to have sex with men? Merely quoting the Bible isn’t evidence. I want a survey of ex-gays in heaven. I want a notarized affidavit from God.
I have a separate question to pose. Why do the majority of the posters, including Esprix, equate being gay with having gay sex? I contend that falling in love with a man, caring for him, and sharing my life with him, even without sex, makes me just as gay as going down on him does. So if I fall in love with a man, but without sex, am I still going to hell, in your view?
And what you fail to realize is that to a religious person, pleasing G-d and getting into heaven is as concrete and rational as cardiovascular health and retirement savings. It is not your belief. You demand a higher standard of proof than a religious person. That’s your requirement. Not necessarily some objective measure of common sense, but personal preference.
No. The Bible does not prohibit anything but the sex.
OK, no harm no foul, just wanted to point that out to you.
Yes, yes, we all know that study, and I’ve no reason to doubt its accuracy. But, like the transient homosexuality evident in the prison system, having homosexual sex doesn’t make them homosexual, just like experimenting teens don’t, either.
You are. The percentage is the same across the animal kingdom, so having the freedom to be open about it has increased the reported statistical numbers.
Maybe you can’t, but from a sheer raw sex point of view, most people can. OK, it might take a pint of tequilla to do it, but it still happens.
Well, some of those South American guerrillas are kind of cute, in an Antonio Banderas kind of way…
Another flat-out wrong statement. Men can be and have been raped, and to state otherwise is grossly unwarranted.
Um, actually, no - a reputable psychiatrist or psychologist would also chalk this up to “harmless sex play” and would not recommend therapy if it had caused no harm - the experimentation in and of itself is no cause for alarm. A good percentage of healthy adolescents do engage in same-sex experimentation without “turning them gay,” and I could quote you sources on this if you like.
Sounds like a pretty warped pet theory, and I certainly don’t agree, but you’re right - this would belong in another forum.
Although I object to the phrase “mental problems,” I do agree that this kind of transitory homosexuality is not unheard of. Are these women bisexual at their core? Only they could say for sure - I wouldn’t presume to make blanket statements about any of them.
Which goes to the OT - are these guys religious devotees or just f*cked up?
You’re confusing wanting to have sex with either gender and being able to have sex with either partner. Under duress, or in an altered state, or by some other means I could have sex with Sophia Loren - I don’t really want to, nor do am I attracted to her, so I’m still gay. By having the sex, does that make me bisexual? Of course not.
Bisexual is defined as “sexually oriented toward both sexes.” It’s not a preference, it’s not a possibility, it’s an orientation.
Why should we bother when your opinion is obviously based on expert conclusions from acknowledge professional sources and reputable scientific organizations? :rolleyes: Do some research before mouthing off, you imbecile.
Most ways of life I know are “personal,” but let’s just say you should amend the above statement with two simple words: “For me.”
I don’t know if you’re a sock puppet, a troll, or just an idiot, but take it somewhere else. I, for one, won’t feed you further.
Hey, you’re preaching to the converted with me, my friend - I agree with you totally.
Hey, here’s a question - would a Christian church bless a same-sex union if they coveted never to consummate their marriage by having sex?
Actually, homosexuality is most often compared to lefthandedness when referring to nature and nurture in people. Evidently they’re very similar from a genetic point of view.
cmkeller said it, goboy - you see it as mythical, whereas they believe it to be The Truth™. Giving up an urge they have because God told them to in order to get into Heaven is the most important thing to those who believe it to be true. Just because you and I might think it’s balderdash is completely irrelevant.
Heck, I could have answered that one - no! It’s the gay sex that is considered the sin, not being gay. One of Dr. Boyfriend’s friends is a gay Mormon, and has decided that he will not have sex until he has met the man he wishes to spend the rest of his life with, and when he is ready to consummate their relationship physically, he will then no longer consider himself a Mormon (although he will still believe in their teachings). So, no, being gay does not 100% equate to homosexual sex, just like being straight does not only mean talking about coitus, but it does have something to do with it.
Esprix, when I stated bisexuality was a preference rather than a possibility, I was just trying to prove that possibility doesn’t equal bisexuality. The only word I could think of to make that comparison was “preference”.
Well now, I’ve offended someone. I’m going to make a shot into the wild blue here. Most of you people are athiest/evolutionists, am I correct? Well, for the “CHRISTIANS” on the board…
Romans 1:24-27- Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanliness, that their bodies might be dishonored between them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and renderesacred service to the creation rather than the creator. That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the <i>natural</i> use of themselves into one contrary to nature, and likewise even the males left the <i>natural</i> use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is <i>obscene</i>…
and
1 Corinthians 6:9-10- What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? not theives, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unatural purposes, nor men who lie with men…
but as I said, I personally think that people can change their old ways.
1 Corinthians 6:11- And yet that is what you <i>were</i>. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.
Now I know you evolutionists won’t beleive this because you don’t beleive in the bible. But you “christians” out there have been given the proof straight from the bible. Homosexuality is unclean, obscene, unatural, etc. But if you quit your old ways and are washed clean as the scripture said, you do have hope. And if the christians on the board think that homosexuality is genetic, how can you change your genetic make up? Not by choice. So these verses prove that homosexuality is choice and that you can change.
Now to the evolutionists. I have little to say to you other than the fact that centuries ago some scientist got smart and came up with the rule that “theories can’t be proven, only disproven.” This has guarded your asses for far too long in which it allows you to prove nothing, but makes try to prove things wrong that aren’t even there to prove wrong. Get my drift? But, to talk evolution, I’ll go to another board. Anyone care to add???
Some spew from Shag… Blah Blah Blah Blah. We don’t believe in your version of the sky god. Now either give us real evidence that is backed with facts rather than antiquated conjecture.
My, we are uncharitable, aren’t we, Shagadelicmysteryman?
First off, evolution is a scientific theory to describe genetic changes in a given population over time. Evolution has nothing to say about purpose or intent of existence.
If you wish to quote the Bible to denounce sinful homosexuality, I can’t quibble with you, let me add a few verses for your own edification.
I Corinthians 8:1-2
…we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
I Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
I John 2:9
He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Before you go preaching to others, you need to examine your own conscience. And what Christian has a nick that celebrates fornication, Shagadelic? To quote Marilyn Manson, “REPENT!”
shagadelic- hip, happening, slang used in 1960’s hippies generation. You are refering to shag, which does mean to fornicate. So, do you see me as happening or do you see me as a fornicator? Either way, I could give a shit less. Now to what you said, goboy.
Matthew 7:1- Do not judge, that ye be not judged.
Did I say I was judging anyone? I was simply stating what the bible said about the subject. Are you saying that the bible is wrong? You people on here go on and on about “how homosexuality is genetic” and “be happy with yourselves.” What if someone wanted to be a good christian, say they were gay. The evidence is clearly there. It has specific verses on homosexuality but the verses you mentioned could cover a very wide range of things. I’d take the information that was more concise and to the point if I were you, but that’s just a suggestion. But for the fact that I may be offending people, I’ll not argue with you on the subject. I’ll beleive what I wish to, and you what you want to.
I’m heeding to the bible scriptures at Philipians 2:14-15
“Keep doing all things free from murmurings and arguments, that you may come to be blameless and innocent, children of God without a blemish in among a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you are shining as illuminators in the world.”
At least on this subject anyways. You’ve heard what I’ve had to say.
There are such things as Christian evolutionists, you know. (There are also plenty of alive-and-kicking Creation vs. Evolution threads going on in the Great Debates forum on this message board right now, if you’d like to add your 2 cents’ worth.)
And for some reason I wanted to throw in a reminder about scientific fact (i.e., psychology) contradicting religious beliefs (i.e., belief one can change one’s sexual orientation), while at the same time pointing out that sexual orientation and sexual behavior are two entirely different subjects. I dunno, just seemed like some folks needed a reminder, which has more to do with the OT.
