Homosexuality - how psychological? how biological? how changeable?

[listophergreene]

Homosexuality (well, sexualities in general basically) - where does it come from and can it be changed?

[Writing_for_a_life]

Well it comes way too back - For examle ancient Greeks - Sokratis is said to have been homosexual and the famous writer Sapfo too . I think that they have been discovered vases with such pictures . The sure is that ancient greek' society wasn't like ours what we now define as homosexual might not have been the same then. Well , I don't think that this is its 'origin' but I gave an example to show that there was always a minority of people with such homosexual interest . I had once heard this theory that the women , being able to create life , might have existed before men - but something happened and men developed . Don't forget that'is just one xromosome that differes us in male and female.:)I think that it is phyhological too-In the past homosexualty was a big taboo .There might have been some homosexuals which were treated really badly from the others but the most people didn't feel the need to wonder if they are homosexuals too( that sounds strange even to my ears)- today homosexuals aren't hiding or something like in the past and people are kind of approved that .

[Severian]

Homosexuality wasn't necessarily taboo in the past. If anything, it was much more accepted than it is today. In the ancient warrior societies - the Samurai, the Spartans, the Vikings, even in Nazi Germany - homosexuality was rampant among men within the army. There are even tales of Spartan women having to dress like men in order to seduce their husbands.

Can homosexuals be "changed"? I don't think so. Why should they be? Sexuality is an individual's choice. We don't get to impose our own morals or preferences on others.

[Zombified]

I think what is most important in this debate is that even if we could change people's sexualities, someone had to have decided that one sexuality is better than the other. I don't know about you guys but that doesn't sound like a good thing to me.

Someone is deciding on things that we cannot control? Why, that's just as bad as a draft or having some guy come into your home and saying, "I like your woman, I think I will go have sex with her", and there is nothing you can do about it.

The fact is, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and if someone thinks there is something wrong with it, the honest truth is, there is something wrong with them. Who are we to decide what people should feel? It is in the individual's mind to choose what they want to do. Not a preacher in South Carolina or a politician with a red tie.

Now before we repeat past debates, I am only saying what I think. My ideals come from the fact that I live in a liberal state, have many gay friends, and am a non religious man. Most of America seems to slowly be drifting in this direction so I don't really have any worries about someone finding a "gay-switching vaccination" in my lifetime.

Then again people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are still running around...

[listophergreene]

My theory is that sexuality is imprinted, so both biological factors and environmental factors go into determining how someone feels about each of the sexes. Some people have more of a choice, because they are open to either sex (they could also be bi). I guess that would mean that if a man really liked other men, but also really wanted to start a family, then he could change. I've read accounts of men who went through hypnotherapy to do just that.

Also, the same method could be used vice-versa, though I don't see as much benefit since that would disallow having biological children and heterosexuality is still more socially acceptable. But hypnotherapy does work when it comes to those things that are set deep in our minds.

Speaking of which, we don't have to find a 'vaccine' to change our sexualities. They're just deeply ingrained in us and if we want to change them we have to try really hard. I think we can relate sexuality to habits in general, once we pick them up they're hard to put down.

[Alex]

I think what is most important in this debate is that even if we could change people's sexualities, someone had to have decided that one sexuality is better than the other. I don't know about you guys but that doesn't sound like a good thing to me.

Someone is deciding on things that we cannot control? Why, that's just as bad as a draft or having some guy come into your home and saying, "I like your woman, I think I will go have sex with her", and there is nothing you can do about it.

The fact is, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and if someone thinks there is something wrong with it, the honest truth is, there is something wrong with them. Who are we to decide what people should feel? It is in the individual's mind to choose what they want to do. Not a preacher in South Carolina or a politician with a red tie.

Now before we repeat past debates, I am only saying what I think. My ideals come from the fact that I live in a liberal state, have many gay friends, and am a non religious man. Most of America seems to slowly be drifting in this direction so I don't really have any worries about someone finding a "gay-switching vaccination" in my lifetime.

Then again people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are still running around...

Just playing devil's advocate here because this is an issue I'm pretty moderate on (I have little personal stake in it or knowledge of the biological factors) but - if a (democratic) society's majority is uncomfortable/does not support gay marriage, should gay marriage be allowed (regardless of what justification on either side of the argument may be)? Politically the answer is probably no, but that doesn't mean the opinions of the majority can't change.

[listophergreene]

Just playing devil's advocate here because this is an issue I'm pretty moderate on (I have little personal stake in it or knowledge of the biological factors) but - if a (democratic) society's majority is uncomfortable/does not support gay marriage, should gay marriage be allowed (regardless of what justification on either side of the argument may be)? Politically the answer is probably no, but that doesn't mean the opinions of the majority can't change.

That's a good point. Now, when a democratic society such as the USA is founded, its constitution sets out several things that will never change, unless the government is abolished. For example: what if all of a sudden the Bill of Rights was supported by a minority? We would still have to follow it, regardless.

This raises the question of whether or not gay marriage and other privileges (they aren't rights yet) cause us to violate our foundations when we neglect them. Now, let's say that a majority of the USA no longer supports -for the sake of example- religious freedom, and a single religion (or absence thereof) is favored to be forced on the population. Can it be done? Well, the constitution (and I do hope I'm referring to the correct document here) states that when our country ceases to operate in freedom (so to speak) that it is the responsibility of the people to abolish it. So... since religious freedom is a given, it can't be taken away.

Now, the argument that arises is whether or not the privileges in question are in fact rights set about by the constitution. Since the early population of the country was quite intolerant of homosexuality, we immediately jump to the conclusion that no rights were imparted to said people. However, we continually redefine different concepts to fit our modern viewpoint on different subjects. I mean, people used to get away with slavery in the land of the free. Talk about ironic.

So... right now I think these 'rights' are under the same stress that alcohol consumption used to be in during the prohibition. Can we? Can't we? These 'rights' have come and gone, and if they were universal they would apply to all states, not just a few. In this way, I think these 'rights' should reflect the population they are applied to, and that's exactly how it works. If someone wants such a marriage, they can go somewhere that honors such a marriage. I don't think it's all that wrong for a 97% heterosexual population to not acknowledge such a union if they aren't comfortable with it, but if they are then they'll let go of their votes and gay couples can live happily ever after. The End.

[Shaun]

Just to offer a little food for thought:
People who go through those "turn you straight" programs have high risk of committing suicide. Why? Because the vast majority of them are homosexual...and that's that. Trying to force someone to be otherwise and constantly judging them and pressuring them with fear and psychological manipulation leads them to determine that maybe dying would be the better way out, because, hey, they can't change and can't be accepted.

This is why I'm against such programs, and against any sort of anti-gay stance at all. People are who they are, and even if they aren't, why does it matter to any of us anyway? Short of someone actually committing crimes, I see no purpose in trying to turn people against their natural inclinations.

But, you'd never see that information listed on the pamphlets. No, never. Can't make it seem like it might not actually be good for you at all. I have the same problem with clinics that provide a place for women to have their children instead of having an abortion, because they only show anti-abortion stuff (usually the extreme circumstances) and not any of the dangers of the other side.

Meh.

[listophergreene]

Your food for thought is very filling, and there is much to chew.

At the same time, 'insanity' is the term given to those who are not accountable for their actions. If we say that homosexuals are 'just that' and cannot help themselves, then we are equating them to the mentally handicapped. I support the programs that help people be who they want to be because it's their choice, and if anyone knows what they're going through it's them, and if they have homosexual attractions but don't like them then I think they ought to have some person or organization out there to help them through.

Also, atheists commit suicide more often than the spiritual, but we don't see that often either, even though a majority of citizens in countries like the USA are in some way religious.

Equally important is the realization that when two factors correlate, one is not necessarily responsible for the other. A third factor may be influencing both. For example: riding a motorcycle without a helmet and smoking cigarettes correlate, but they aren't responsible for one another. Instead, 'risk takers' are likely to do both of these things. People who want to change their sexuality are more likely to be generally troubled in life, leading to the correlation of suicide and sexuality changers.

I've never seen an actual 'homo to hetero' clinic myself, I've only researched such cases in my studies of hypnotherapy. For this reason I cannot attest to the false advertising that was mentioned, but I can't deny that it's out there. All I was referring to were those people who desperately wanted to change themselves and were looking for any way possible to do that, without paying heed to such false advertising.

[Shaun]

At the same time, 'insanity' is the term given to those who are not accountable for their actions. If we say that homosexuals are 'just that' and cannot help themselves, then we are equating them to the mentally handicapped. I support the programs that help people be who they want to be because it's their choice, and if anyone knows what they're going through it's them, and if they have homosexual attractions but don't like them then I think they ought to have some person or organization out there to help them through.

I fail to see what accountability for one's actions has to do with sexual orientation. Also, by your logic here, heterosexuals are mentally handicapped or insane too, since we don't choose our orientation anymore than homosexuals do. We just are.

Right, because why should we help people accept who they are? That would be bad. Heaven forbid that someone is gay, is afraid to be gay because they are viewed as a social pariah, and then goes to some jackass who will try to force them to be something they are not. You don't choose who you are. You just are. Unless who you are is dangerous to other people, you should accept it, and we should push for more programs that help people do just that, not put them through trials that they can never truly succeed at. You can't change a gay man; you can try, but you will ultimately fail, and that person will have to live with that. Successful cases are far and few between.

Also, atheists commit suicide more often than the spiritual, but we don't see that often either, even though a majority of citizens in countries like the USA are in some way religious.

Suicide rates among atheists tend to include assisted suicide, which is a bit unfair to add to the rates considering that religious people are entirely against assisted suicide. Then again, I don't consider assisted suicide really suicide anyway. And yes, population differences plays a big role in the "rates." It has little to do with being atheist, except insofar as personal belief is concerned. But when you see statistics, they are always heavily skewed against atheists. Nobody bothers to compare the numbers against population density.

Equally important is the realization that when two factors correlate, one is not necessarily responsible for the other. A third factor may be influencing both. For example: riding a motorcycle without a helmet and smoking cigarettes correlate, but they aren't responsible for one another. Instead, 'risk takers' are likely to do both of these things. People who want to change their sexuality are more likely to be generally troubled in life, leading to the correlation of suicide and sexuality changers.

You'd do well to try to understand why they are troubled. Most of the time it has nothing to do directly with who they are, but with how they are perceived, or believe they are perceived, by others. Or there are other external factors, such as abusive parents, etc. What all this has to do with homosexuality or any sexuality I don't know.

I've never seen an actual 'homo to hetero' clinic myself, I've only researched such cases in my studies of hypnotherapy. For this reason I cannot attest to the false advertising that was mentioned, but I can't deny that it's out there. All I was referring to were those people who desperately wanted to change themselves and were looking for any way possible to do that, without paying heed to such false advertising.

Nobody wants to change their sexuality for themselves. They want to change it for others, so that they will be viewed differently, and in almost all cases of these attempts to change sexuality, it is due to religious pressure, because being gay and fundamentalist Christian does not work. This issue is too complex to simply say "you want to change, go to a magic shrink and change." We do more damage to people if we make it seem like changing who you don't want to be is the better course. Acceptance, not rejection.

[listophergreene]

Yes, the insanity picture is relative to both heterosexuals and homosexuals and everything in between and everything far outside those sexualities. My point is that we all have a license to be who we want to be, and there isn't some unchangeable force inside strict 'heterosexuals' or 'homosexuals' that says they will only be satisfied with being intimate with one sex or the other. We can do whatever we want, even change, for whatever reason we choose.

[Shaun]

No, we can't do whatever we want. Sometimes change is not possible. To assume otherwise indicates to me that you have no clue what sort of things people in these positions actually go through. Do some reading. It's not as simple as going to a shrink and flipping a switch. This is like comparing being gay to being an alcoholic...

[listophergreene]

You're right. Alcoholics have it easy. When it comes to addictions, pornography is more addicting than alcohol, and so we can assume that changing someone's sexuality would be just as hard. However, not all homosexuals are hardcore gay, and vice-versa with hetero's. Most people who are dead set on their sexuality aren't going to want to change it in the first place. Those who choose to change are often those whose environments have taken a toll on them and they just want to throw everything off and start over without any preconceived notions.

And hypnotherapists aren't exactly shrinks... or so I've read, if that accounts for anything. There is a deep caring for every patient that goes into any successful hypnotherapist's career. For anything to work, they have to actually understand and relate to the people who are having trouble and want some help. No, I did not just call all gay people troubled. I am trying to get the point across that yes, hypnotherapy, among other things, can and has helped people be who they wanted to be, and that is a fact. We are searching for those, right?

[Shaun]

You're right. Alcoholics have it easy. When it comes to addictions, pornography is more addicting than alcohol, and so we can assume that changing someone's sexuality would be just as hard. However, not all homosexuals are hardcore gay, and vice-versa with hetero's. Most people who are dead set on their sexuality aren't going to want to change it in the first place. Those who choose to change are often those whose environments have taken a toll on them and they just want to throw everything off and start over without any preconceived notions.

And hypnotherapists aren't exactly shrinks... or so I've read, if that accounts for anything. There is a deep caring for every patient that goes into any successful hypnotherapist's career. For anything to work, they have to actually understand and relate to the people who are having trouble and want some help. No, I did not just call all gay people troubled. I am trying to get the point across that yes, hypnotherapy, among other things, can and has helped people be who they wanted to be, and that is a fact. We are searching for those, right?

No, what we're searching for are instances where such practices actually work, permanently, and in which the person getting the treatment went into it for the proper reasons. You can train anyone to believe something. If that weren't true you wouldn't see some of the bizarre religious cults and other nonsense permeating our society. Whether that is good for those people is yet to be seen.

Nothing you've said here indicates that anything I just said is true. You'e provided ample reason for me to continue viewing these practices of "changing people" as violations of human dignity.

And there's no such thing as "hardcore gay or straight."

[listophergreene]

And there's no such thing as "hardcore gay or straight."

Very much agreed.

I can't cite the book because I do not currently have access to it, but I can regurgitate the story of a man who wanted a family, and because of that, he wanted an attraction to women. He was caught up in a lifestyle that wouldn't allow him the life he wanted, so he decided to change. After he met and worked with a hypnotherapist (the author of the book) he was able to look at women in the way that he wished he could look at them. Soon after he was attracted to a woman who liked him back. They dated and he proposed, and from the latest report received by the hypnotherapist they have settled down and are working toward the family that they both dreamed of.

I think that's pretty successful, and of course everyone's different, but I doubt many would consider that story anything less than a success. I don't think the man had any wrong reasons to do the therapy, and he came out of it with what he wanted. Also, the therapist in question is a huge liberal, and has authored two books about the respective sexes and finding sexual fulfillment. I'm pretty sure all parties involved knew what they were working with, much to the satisfaction of a now happily married heterosexual couple with children.

[Shaun]

You just proved my point. He was put under pressure by a society that views homosexual families as inherently "wrong" to change who he was to accommodate an inherently patriarchal cultural system that denies "outsiders" the same inclusive relationship the dominant tiers of the hierarchy cherish.

You're also basing success on temporary victories. Think of it in terms of the Iraq War: we declared "mission accomplished" when Saddam had essentially been defeated, but that didn't mean that issues wouldn't surface later. We have no way of knowing if this guy you mentioned will stay with that woman forever, or if he will revert back to his original orientation later in life. There have been numerous cases of the reversion, so it's not at all unlikely to occur.

I consider it less than a success unless they live happily together, without homosexual incident, until the day they both die. And he did have all the wrong reasons to start a family. Why couldn't he have started a family as a gay man? There's no reason he couldn't.

[listophergreene]

Unfortunately, many people fail to realize that homosexual couples are incapable of having legit biological children. This man did what he had to to have what he wanted, and was successful.

[Shaun]

No, this man did what he was taught to believe is the only way to have biological children, or to have a family. Gay people are just as capable of having children as anyone else, they just have to go through different processes to do it.

[listophergreene]

But why would they? Well, to be comfortable with themselves, I suppose, but it all depends on the person and the circumstances. The man who went through hypnotherapy was able to tell about experimentation he had done with a close male friend during childhood, and how he was caught. Even though he had always drifted in the homosexual direction, he felt that he wasn't locked into it, and he wanted to move on with his life and start a traditional family.

I see what you mean when you say that we shouldn't bend to society's expectations. But the aforementioned individual didn't feel restrained by external factors, but internal ones. Hypnotherapy helped him overcome those.

[Shaun]

Right, but this individual was internally conflicted precisely because of the way society has built up the dominant familial figure. You can argue this all you want, but ultimately we get right down to the fact that this individual, whether consciously or not, perceived the "traditional family" as the desirable one precisely because society had deemed it so. This is still true today, because battles are constantly being fought over whether gays should have the right to start families, raise kids, etc. The fact that he chose to seek therapy to "change" who he was so he could fit into the dominant world, so he could have a "traditional family" tells me that he was bending to social pressure, not to an actual necessity for rightness within himself. If we lived in a society that did not condemn someone for being hetero or gay, would he have made the same decision? I doubt it. He would see that he could start a family just like anyone else.

Basically, this whole argument is trying to reduce homosexuality to a psychological condition akin to schizophrenia or some other debilitating mental disease. It is not and never has been. It's as natural to human beings as heterosexuality; that is proven by the fact that it has existed just about as long as we have...

[listophergreene]

Psychologically speaking, man-woman family systems have been recommended to foster a child's healthy development. I'm not saying it's the only way, but there is a recommendation out there.

I'm not relating homosexuality to schizophrenia or the like. I will say that the further and further away we get from traditional couples the closer we get to dangerous psychological states, including those of pedophiles et cetera. I don't consider homosexuality very far away from the traditional couple, because it's the same principle mentally, just not physically. But once we realize that any sexual condition is just an eyeglass through which people see sexuality, we can go on to allow people to change their eyeglass. Even heterosexuality, the traditional eyeglass, is just an eyeglass. Humans are simply 'sexual', we have little inside us that attracts us to natural biologically efficient relations, and so homosexuality is not an irremovable aspect of one's life.

Seeing the world though a different eyeglass is certainly intimidating, but it can be done, and some people find it desirable. I don't see why we shouldn't allow that. If both sexualities are equal, then why can't someone switch theirs? You would support a dangerous operation for transsexualism, but not something so trivial that hypnotherapy can be used?

Here I go with a 'what if', but what if someone is 'born' a heterosexual, then all their life they interpret signals that tell them they're gay? What if they want to be who they were born as? There are a lot more factors than simple biology going into sexuality.

[Shaun]

Psychologically speaking, man-woman family systems have been recommended to foster a child's healthy development. I'm not saying it's the only way, but there is a recommendation out there.

By who?

I'm not relating homosexuality to schizophrenia or the like. I will say that the further and further away we get from traditional couples the closer we get to dangerous psychological states, including those of pedophiles et cetera. I don't consider homosexuality very far away from the traditional couple, because it's the same principle mentally, just not physically. But once we realize that any sexual condition is just an eyeglass through which people see sexuality, we can go on to allow people to change their eyeglass. Even heterosexuality, the traditional eyeglass, is just an eyeglass. Humans are simply 'sexual', we have little inside us that attracts us to natural biologically efficient relations, and so homosexuality is not an irremovable aspect of one's life.

Not intentionally, you're not, but the comparison is still being made in the push to "treat" homosexuality.

The problem is that your eyeglass analogy fails miserably in a society like ours, which is intensely hetero and institutionalizes the practice. It's not "normal" to be gay, so one cannot possibly change to being hetero without being figured within the skewed dichotomy of hetero/homo. If we lived in a magic world where everyone viewed being gay or straight as nothing more than just a state of existence, then, maybe, but we aren't there now, and probably never will be. Religion has done a fine job of keeping the attacks focused on destroying the homosexual couple (radical religion) and making the hetero couple the dominant and "important" one.

Here I go with a 'what if', but what if someone is 'born' a heterosexual, then all their life they interpret signals that tell them they're gay? What if they want to be who they were born as? There are a lot more factors than simple biology going into sexuality.

They were born gay or bi. That's it. There's no consideration otherwise in my view. You weren't born liking girls, you just chose to like them or ignored the signs that were always there. People don't spontaneously become gay. You can look back and see the signs.

[listophergreene]

They were born gay or bi. That's it. There's no consideration otherwise in my view. You weren't born liking girls, you just chose to like them or ignored the signs that were always there. People don't spontaneously become gay. You can look back and see the signs.

But that's just a matter of your opinion isn't it? Can you prove it? As I see it, as I've heard it stated before, if it's not you then you don't know what it's like. We're all different. We all have our own lives and everything in them. We know more about us than anyone else, and that still isn't very much. I read the story and the man told about himself. If anyone knew, it was him. If he was born 'bi', then he would have had an attraction to women still, but it had subsided. Something isn't adding up. He knew that he did not 'spontaneously' become gay, he could recall consistent development in that direction. There were clearly outside factors influencing him, he was not innately one sexuality or the other. If outside factors influence sexuality - as was this case - then it is a malleable aspect of our personal selves. We can be changed. If we wish to undergo such a change, who is anyone else to stop us, or tell us that it cannot be done? Cases like this defy such eyeglasses.

[Shaun]

But that's just a matter of your opinion isn't it? Can you prove it? As I see it, as I've heard it stated before, if it's not you then you don't know what it's like. We're all different. We all have our own lives and everything in them. We know more about us than anyone else, and that still isn't very much. I read the story and the man told about himself. If anyone knew, it was him. If he was born 'bi', then he would have had an attraction to women still, but it had subsided. Something isn't adding up. He knew that he did not 'spontaneously' become gay, he could recall consistent development in that direction. There were clearly outside factors influencing him, he was not innately one sexuality or the other. If outside factors influence sexuality - as was this case - then it is a malleable aspect of our personal selves. We can be changed. If we wish to undergo such a change, who is anyone else to stop us, or tell us that it cannot be done? Cases like this defy such eyeglasses.

You just proved my point. He was gay. You can force human beings to believe or feel just about anything. Psychology studies on infants has proven this. Adults are just as susceptible to persuasion and suggestion.

You can do whatever you want, but to sit here and say that it's right or proper to deny who you are just to meet the demands of society is to be disingenuous. You're doing nothing here but proving my point, over and over. If he was born gay, then he was gay. If he tried to change who he was, fine, but he's still gay, and always will be, he just programmed himself to be otherwise. Whether that programming will hold is yet to be seen.

And again, we've reduced homosexuality to the status of "disease" that needs to be rectified if someone doesn't like that they are a certain way. What people do with their lives is up to them, but there is a fine line between right and wrong, and suggesting that psychologically reprogramming people to fit the model of society is perfectly acceptable behavior is like saying it would be okay to eat babies if we lived in the twisted and satirical world of Swift's A Modest Proposal. Human beings should know better.

[listophergreene]

You just proved my point. He was gay. You can force human beings to believe or feel just about anything. Psychology studies on infants has proven this. Adults are just as susceptible to persuasion and suggestion.

In other words, just as I said before, we don't have anything set inside us. It's all external. It's all whatever is going on. If a gay man has sex with only women, just for the sake of illustration, is he still gay? What about straight men who would have sex with other men for money? Are they straight? Or have they become bi? Or, as you would say, have they secretly been bi all along?

You can do whatever you want, but to sit here and say that it's right or proper to deny who you are just to meet the demands of society is to be disingenuous. You're doing nothing here but proving my point, over and over. If he was born gay, then he was gay. If he tried to change who he was, fine, but he's still gay, and always will be, he just programmed himself to be otherwise. Whether that programming will hold is yet to be seen.

Nobody is 'meeting the demands of society'. The only illustration I gave had nothing to do with society and everything to do with the man and what he wanted in life. He wanted a family. He wanted a wife and he wanted her children. When he was gay that wouldn't have worked out.

If you buy a Windows Vista running Gateway and install Ubuntu on it, is it still a Windows? No. Human bodies are hardware, human minds are software. If you 'program' yourself differently, they you truly have changed. And hypnotherapy doesn't 'program' anyway, it just allows greater influence by suggestion. Nobody can sit back and be hypnotized into doing something they don't want, they still have to put effort into it. When that man devoted himself to change, he didn't get brainwashed, he just got assistance so he could think on the wavelength he wanted to think. He consciously decided that he would like and continue to like women.

And again, we've reduced homosexuality to the status of "disease" that needs to be rectified if someone doesn't like that they are a certain way. What people do with their lives is up to them, but there is a fine line between right and wrong, and suggesting that psychologically reprogramming people to fit the model of society is perfectly acceptable behavior is like saying it would be okay to eat babies if we lived in the twisted and satirical world of Swift's A Modest Proposal. Human beings should know better.

As I've stated before, any sexuality is merely an eyeglass. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are empty words, we are what we do. Homosexuality is not a 'disease', but a lifestyle. It's just one of many factors that makes someone who they are.

It is wrong to define a disabled person by their disability, because it is not their fault. It is not how they see themselves. But homosexuality is a title that is proudly worn. If someone doesn't want to wear that title or live that life, we shouldn't accuse them of being cowards trying to escape reality, because once we can make our own decisions our development and identity are largely up to us. Also, as I've stated before, this 'treatment' works both ways - homo-hetero and hetero-homo - it does not limit itself to 'treating' homosexuals.

And I've read 'A Modest Proposal'. It amuses me, but it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Swift sarcastically claims that we should eat babies to solve a hunger problem, along with other obvious unjust procedures. This does not correlate to an individual's decision to be or to not be something, or to have any certain sexual orientation.

If a 'heterosexual' finds himself curious and wants to try something with another man, is he now bi? If he gives up sex with women altogether does he become gay? Or would you claim that he is still straight all along, having 'programmed' himself to like men? Or would you say that he was really gay the entire time and only thought that he liked sex with women? Many would default to claiming that the individual was bi. In truth, he was whatever his mental wavelength was at the time. We are defined by our actions, and nobody chooses what we do but us.

[Shaun]

In other words, just as I said before, we don't have anything set inside us. It's all external. It's all whatever is going on. If a gay man has sex with only women, just for the sake of illustration, is he still gay? What about straight men who would have sex with other men for money? Are they straight? Or have they become bi? Or, as you would say, have they secretly been bi all along?

No, what I was saying is that people can be programmed to do things that otherwise would be counter to their nature. Read some psychology history on the things that we've done to people in the name of science. Human beings are remarkably willing to change who they are to meet the demands of an external agent.

Do those straight men enjoy it? Being gay has nothing to do with sex; it has everything to do with being attracted (emotionally and physically) to the opposite sex. Homosexuality has never had anything to do with sex except in the same way that a heterosexual relationship does: i.e. what would be perceived as normal.

Nobody is 'meeting the demands of society'. The only illustration I gave had nothing to do with society and everything to do with the man and what he wanted in life. He wanted a family. He wanted a wife and he wanted her children. When he was gay that wouldn't have worked out.

It has everything to do with society. The second you said he wanted the "traditional family" you made it very clear that it had to do with social pressures. He can have a family as a gay man. He can even have biological children as a gay man. The fact that he went for the "traditional family" implies a connection between social pressure and his desire to go against his better nature.

If you buy a Windows Vista running Gateway and install Ubuntu on it, is it still a Windows? No. Human bodies are hardware, human minds are software. If you 'program' yourself differently, they you truly have changed. And hypnotherapy doesn't 'program' anyway, it just allows greater influence by suggestion. Nobody can sit back and be hypnotized into doing something they don't want, they still have to put effort into it. When that man devoted himself to change, he didn't get brainwashed, he just got assistance so he could think on the wavelength he wanted to think. He consciously decided that he would like and continue to like women.

The markers of Vista will still be there. Harddrives don't magically wipe out when you install something new. If you're going to use a computer analogy, at least use a good one :P. We don't wipe out people's brains by replacing the HD; we've yet to learn how to do that.

And, actually, yes, you can get people to do things they don't want quite easily. Do you think slavery was successful because they wanted to be slaves? No, they were physically and psychologically conditioned to accept slavery as their fate. The same is true of numerous other situations that do not involve physical influence.

The more you try to argue for this fellow, the more it becomes clear that not only do you not understand the psychological complexity of the human mind, but that this poor man was, in fact, brainwashed, and that his decisions were not ones he made in good faith.

As I've stated before, any sexuality is merely an eyeglass. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are empty words, we are what we do. Homosexuality is not a 'disease', but a lifestyle. It's just one of many factors that makes someone who they are.

Yes, but constantly referring to hypnotherapy as a valid method for changing who you are equates homosexuality to a disease. You can spin it however you want, but the language, the evidence, and your general stance are doing this, even if you don't think that's what you're saying.

It is wrong to define a disabled person by their disability, because it is not their fault. It is not how they see themselves. But homosexuality is a title that is proudly worn. If someone doesn't want to wear that title or live that life, we shouldn't accuse them of being cowards trying to escape reality, because once we can make our own decisions our development and identity are largely up to us. Also, as I've stated before, this 'treatment' works both ways - homo-hetero and hetero-homo - it does not limit itself to 'treating' homosexuals.

You need to get out more. Homosexuality is only becoming acceptable today. It wasn't before. It used to be you could be killed for being gay, and in parts of the U.S. and the world, this is still true.

Has it been used by heteros?

And I've read 'A Modest Proposal'. It amuses me, but it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Swift sarcastically claims that we should eat babies to solve a hunger problem, along with other obvious unjust procedures. This does not correlate to an individual's decision to be or to not be something, or to have any certain sexual orientation.

I know it's sarcastic. I said "satirical" when I brought it up. You clearly failed to catch the irony and the satire in my statement.

If a 'heterosexual' finds himself curious and wants to try something with another man, is he now bi? If he gives up sex with women altogether does he become gay? Or would you claim that he is still straight all along, having 'programmed' himself to like men? Or would you say that he was really gay the entire time and only thought that he liked sex with women? Many would default to claiming that the individual was bi. In truth, he was whatever his mental wavelength was at the time. We are defined by our actions, and nobody chooses what we do but us.

I'm not going to answer this because you have it in your head that sexuality has to do with sexual intercourse, which it does not. It's due to a clever smear by radical religion to paint homosexuality as being all about plugging guys in their butts. You've got to get that out of your head before we can even talk about these things...

[listophergreene]

First, I've only read one account of hypnotherapy being used to help someone with their sexuality, and that was a homo to hetero transition. I see your point about this indicating a response to social pressure, and I have to agree that there's no way this man wasn't under some. He was from a very liberal city in a very liberal state though. However, I doubt social pressure was a majority of his influence when he chose to start a 'traditional' family. He wanted children and he wanted them through a woman who he was married and devoted to. Is that socially conformist? Yes. That doesn't mean that he did it just to conform. In liberal areas such as the one he lives in, most people feel more free to be whoever they want to be, so I'm inclined to believe that he did this mostly just because he wanted it, not because society wanted it, because his society was very accepting of who he was.

I suppose my 'disease' sounding stance will have to be just that. I can't really change how I speak of it because I never tried to make homosexuality sound like a disease in the first place. I guess it's the same vibe I get when I hear an atheist talk about a religion or spirituality and tell someone that they 'respect' it, even though they disagree. Ba. They find it completely illogical and view the spiritual person as mentally depraved. At least I don't think of homosexuality this way. As I've stated continually, it is just one of many lenses, and heterosexuality is another.

Now then... if I am emotionally attracted to both men and women (a.k.a. - I view everyone as a friend that I have or haven't made) am I 'bisexual'? Because I get this slight feeling that the suffix 'sexual' might have something to do with sex, but maybe it's just me. It is a sexuality, but I could be mistaken.

I've always seen everyone as being emotionally capable of bonding with every other person. Whether they are sexually attracted to a certain sex is how their sexuality is defined. Since sex is physical and emotions are not, anyone can love another to the highest degree without being physically intimate with them. Given, such intimacy would be extremely pleasurable, but it isn't necessary for true love.

I will admit radical religion has done some clever work on the way we look at things. They have painted homosexuals as depraved and lustful, which is a terrible generalization. Many of them are just loving who they love, and extending that love to their physical actions.

But love and sex are not the same. You can't easily change who you love. You can more easily alter who you are sexually attracted to.

[Shaun]

You edited out the bit about drawing men. No, that doesn't have anything to do with your sexuality unless you feel a general attraction towards men. That's not the same as, say, being fascinated by the body; attraction is something a little deeper than that. If every guy who liked abs or whatever was gay, then every man would be gay. There is no such thing as a man who does not have some passing interest in his or her body form as exemplified in others. Same with women.

[listophergreene]

You edited out the bit about drawing men. No, that doesn't have anything to do with your sexuality unless you feel a general attraction towards men. That's not the same as, say, being fascinated by the body; attraction is something a little deeper than that. If every guy who liked abs or whatever was gay, then every man would be gay. There is no such thing as a man who does not have some passing interest in his or her body form as exemplified in others. Same with women.

Nice catch :P

So... how far does emotional attraction go? I guess I'm not sure if I understand the definition of homosexuality that you are using. What if someone 'makes your heart flutter', so to speak, and you absolutely love talking to them. Regardless of their sex, is that what you mean when you refer to 'emotional attraction'? Or is it deeper?

[Shaun]

How far does emotional attachment go in hetero couples? It's exactly the same, just with two penises or two vaginas instead of opposites.

If someone makes your heart flutter, then I suspect that you are attracted to that person in a way that is not friendship.

[listophergreene]

Then how does that translate to physical attraction? Like, what if someone got used to hearing someone's voice over the phone or internet and it made them happy inside, then when they met the person they thought they were rather unattractive, but they still loved their personality? It would mean that attraction has two distinct levels that don't have to overlap.

That would mean that (prefix)-'sexuality' only refers to the physical aspect of attraction, wouldn't it? Because if you really like someone but you would never have sex with them because you don't feel inclined to being intimate with that particular sex, well, do you consider that a sexuality? Or is that simply a strong friendship? I also think this works better with most gay men, since (and maybe this is stereotyping but it's true for everyone I've known) they tend to have a good number of female friends. Can you actually have a friend who you are not emotionally attracted to?

If we separate attraction to emotional/physical then do you still consider both of them to affect a person's sexuality? And this is probably going to amuse you, but what about the so-called 'male bonding' that often occurs in athletic groups, which is not intimate but, well, I suppose just a huge spike in familiarity? If it is emotional then is every guy involved gay?

This sounds like I'm trying to prove a point but I'm more interested in understanding different viewpoints.

[Shaun]

Then how does that translate to physical attraction? Like, what if someone got used to hearing someone's voice over the phone or internet and it made them happy inside, then when they met the person they thought they were rather unattractive, but they still loved their personality? It would mean that attraction has two distinct levels that don't have to overlap.

That would really depend on the individual. Some people value the physical more than the emotional, and vice versa, but all of them play a role in the overall attraction, though subconsciously in some cases...

That would mean that (prefix)-'sexuality' only refers to the physical aspect of attraction, wouldn't it? Because if you really like someone but you would never have sex with them because you don't feel inclined to being intimate with that particular sex, well, do you consider that a sexuality? Or is that simply a strong friendship? I also think this works better with most gay men, since (and maybe this is stereotyping but it's true for everyone I've known) they tend to have a good number of female friends. Can you actually have a friend who you are not emotionally attracted to?

Sexuality does not equal intercourse or the factors that make intercourse more plausible (typically the physical). Sexuality is a more complicated subject than just "I like boys" or "I like girls."

If you don't feel inclined for a "romantic" relationship with someone based on their gender, then you're not of that particular orientation. You can love people, but not want to be with them in a romantic capacity. But if you do find yourself inclined towards a relationship, then you're that particularly orientation.

Platonic and romantic attraction are different.

[listophergreene]

I see... is that why they coin terms like MSM? Because some people aren't romantically attracted to their own sex but don't have choices? What about in prison, where there are only men, and some of them rape others - do you consider those men homosexual to any capacity? Since they're interested in only the physical part of the relation, and that is male-male, would they be gay? Or can they honestly consider themselves heterosexual?

[Shaun]

Prison is an example of men doing extreme things when subjected to adversity. Some of them might be gay. Some of them might not.

[Ninjatrone]

I might just be expressing how naive I am by saying this, but I believe our sexual orientation rests on how we were raised and what we've become used to.
In my opinion (and this is only regarding to men); because in general we were much closer to our mothers than our fathers in early childhood, we learned to traditionally be more affectionate with females than with males. Alas, this is most likely incorrect, as it does not explain how females' sexual orientations are decided.
Although, most women have, in lack of a better term, 'closer' relationships with their female friends than men have with their male friends. This probably relates somehow to their estrogen levels, though.

[Shaun]

I might just be expressing how naive I am by saying this, but I believe our sexual orientation rests on how we were raised and what we've become used to.
In my opinion (and this is only regarding to men); because in general we were much closer to our mothers than our fathers in early childhood, we learned to traditionally be more affectionate with females than with males. Alas, this is most likely incorrect, as it does not explain how females' sexual orientations are decided.
Although, most women have, in lack of a better term, 'closer' relationships with their female friends than men have with their male friends. This probably relates somehow to their estrogen levels, though.

If that were true then homosexuality would not exist at all.

[Andy]

I am by saying this, but I believe our sexual orientation rests on how we were raised and what we've become used to.My sociology professor last year taught that it one's sexual orientation has a lot to do with upbringing. He told a humorous story of a princess whose nurse decided to see if she could trick everyone into thinking she was a boy. And until her teenage years, everyone treated her like such, with clothes, expectations, etc. And she grew into it. And her parents were later shocked. :)

In short, a lot of how we see ourselves depends not on genetics but on our environment and interactions with others, though genetics may influence it. This is shown by the fact that in many cases of identical twins, on grows up considering himself heteroxesual, the other homosexual. The genes were the same, but their experiences in life were not.
If that were true then homosexuality would not exist at all.
Not necessarily. The actions and behaviors of the parents could influence the child one way or the other, without the parent actually adopting the same way. For example, if two parents fight a lot, and the son tends to agree with the father, that son may feel more inclined to get a boyfriend than a girlfriend.

[Shaun]

My sociology professor last year taught that it one's sexual orientation has a lot to do with upbringing. He told a humorous story of a princess whose nurse decided to see if she could trick everyone into thinking she was a boy. And until her teenage years, everyone treated her like such, with clothes, expectations, etc. And she grew into it. And her parents were later shocked. :)

In short, a lot of how we see ourselves depends not on genetics but on our environment and interactions with others, though genetics may influence it. This is shown by the fact that in many cases of identical twins, on grows up considering himself heteroxesual, the other homosexual. The genes were the same, but their experiences in life were not.

Not necessarily. The actions and behaviors of the parents could influence the child one way or the other, without the parent actually adopting the same way. For example, if two parents fight a lot, and the son tends to agree with the father, that son may feel more inclined to get a boyfriend than a girlfriend.

Right, so all those hundreds of years of rampant anti-gay sentiment clearly created the conditions where homosexuality was more likely. Or, you know, kids who are gay in families that are anti-gay, they are gay because they were raised that way, even though they weren't raised that way...

The reality is that upbringing doesn't make you gay. It may contribute and it may help, but you're gay because you're gay, not because you agreed with your Dad (which is an absurd assumption altogether; read some psychoanalysis). This is the logic that feeds all that anti-gay movements: you can't let them adopt cause they'll raise little homos. I was raised by a gay parent. I'm not gay. I'm gay friendly, and that is a result of my upbringing, but I'm not gay. I'm hetero because that's what I was born as.

[Ninjatrone]

Right, so all those hundreds of years of rampant anti-gay sentiment clearly created the conditions where homosexuality was more likely. Or, you know, kids who are gay in families that are anti-gay, they are gay because they were raised that way, even though they weren't raised that way...

The reality is that upbringing doesn't make you gay. It may contribute and it may help, but you're gay because you're gay, not because you agreed with your Dad (which is an absurd assumption altogether; read some psychoanalysis). This is the logic that feeds all that anti-gay movements: you can't let them adopt cause they'll raise little homos. I was raised by a gay parent. I'm not gay. I'm gay friendly, and that is a result of my upbringing, but I'm not gay. I'm hetero because that's what I was born as.

Do you believe that you were born heterosexual, or that you automatically decided on your sexual orientation during childhood or later? I've heard alot of my friends discussing how they once thought they were gay for a short time during post-puberty, only to have them all come out straight in the end.

[Shaun]

Do you believe that you were born heterosexual, or that you automatically decided on your sexual orientation during childhood or later? I've heard alot of my friends discussing how they once thought they were gay for a short time during post-puberty, only to have them all come out straight in the end.

I was born this way. There's a difference between curiosity and actually being gay.

[Ninjatrone]

I was born this way. There's a difference between curiosity and actually being gay.

Not that I think what you're saying is false, but in my opinion, we start out asexual.
I don't remember being more inclined to be attracted to women than men until around the age of 10.

[Shaun]

That doesn't mean you were asexual. Think of sexuality like puberty.

[Bowie20049]

Not that I think what you're saying is false, but in my opinion, we start out asexual.
I don't remember being more inclined to be attracted to women than men until around the age of 10.

What?

–adjective 1. Biology. a. having no sex or sexual organs. b. independent of sexual processes, esp. not involving the union of male and female germ cells.

[Simmi]

I thought asexual meant liking yourself or you don't like girls or boys, something like that. I read it somewhere once.

[Ninjatrone]

What?

–adjective 1. Biology. a. having no sex or sexual organs. b. independent of sexual processes, esp. not involving the union of male and female germ cells.

When reffering to humans, asexual more commonly means that you are attracted to neither gender. It could also mean an extreme case of narcisism (sp?), in which you become sexually attracted to none save your own body.

[Bowie20049]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

[lango]

Most homosexuals are born that way, but it's the influence of their surroundings that will make them discover it or not. Say, someone is born with a very, very slight inclination of being gay. He grows up and starts going out with his friends, some gay, some not. He starts going to GLS parties. He gets curious. Sooner or later, he will decide he is gay.

Now picture a guy with, say, a greater inclination of being gay. He doesn't leave home much, he was brought up to believe he must get girls. This fellow probably has a much smaller chance of being homosexual than the guy above.

On puberty, almost everyone wanders a bit. Human being is curious. They say all girls were born bisexual, athough that's just a joke to play with guys' fantasies, it has a lot of truth in it. A girl can think "Hmm, that girl is cute :) I will go talk to her." but a guy would think "Ha my friend is kinda cute, should I go tell him that? Nah, I'd rather keep my teeth." So yeah, I guess social opression is what makes some homosexuals decide to be hetero.

I apologize for my uneducated arguments. :P I've never been much of a curious person, and if I was curious once, I lost all my curiosity when I watched my first James Bond movie. Since then, all I wanted was to get the money, get the cars, get all the girls, be inteligent, and hella baddass. See? Society opressed me :D

[Shaun]

Freud's Narcissism is a little more complicated than that.

[listophergreene]

Let's say there are identical twins who do not have like sexualities...
1. Is this possible?
2. If not, then why do some identical twins claim to differ in sexuality?
3. What if one twin is gay, and the other claims to be straight. What if the other has a hard time getting a dedicated girlfriend because they all think he must be gay too if homosexuality is biological?

Alas, the 'what if's never fail to amuse... but these are serious questions. Also, in psychology today we explored the nature/nurture idea again. It made me think about how genetically influenced we might be toward things that do not physically manifest, only mentally, such as sexuality.

The correlation of the IQs of identical twins, raised together or apart, is higher than the correlation of fraternal twins in the same circumstances. However, these observations are limited to standardized testing... and we know what that means. There are plenty of other influences that could cause such correlation. If there is genetic influence on overall stress, or other factors that could affect test-taking, then the IQ correlation doesn't mean that the IQs actually have anything to do with each other. It could just be test taking skills.

In the same way, I propose that there is no certain gene that influences homosexuality (or any other sexuality). It would make more sense if a web of genes interacted and correlated with certain sexualities. After all, we only identify ourselves as a certain sexuality after we measure how we view the different sexes. It's not "I'm gay, therefore I like my own sex." but "I like my own sex, therefore I am gay."

And like all things, sexuality is prone to environmental alteration. Just like the surrounding chemical balance and other stimuli affect how we develop in the womb, the society around us changes how we look at the sexes. We are not hardwired at birth.
__________________

Another story I want to mention is from an anti-hate article that I read. A boy (physically) turns 16 or 18 or some other significant age and decides that he is not a he anymore, but a she. (I'll refer to the boy as 'she' from now on, though it is medically incorrect, just for ease of identification.) Her mother was fine with it, and immediately took her new daughter shopping for girl clothes.

Years down the road, the girl is on her own in the world. She has fun going to bars and having fun with the guys. She meets three guys who think that she's attractive, and they invite her to their place. She is a regular at the house for quite awhile, until odd coincidences begin to occur.

The guys haven't seen her for a few days, and they talk to one another about how she's been acting strange lately. One claims that she asked him to take the behind route because it was that time of month. Another realizes that a week earlier she said the same thing to him. They think, surely it couldn't have lasted that long. Then they think about the scarf she always wore... could it be concealing an adam's apple?

When she finally shows up again, they are nervous. They want answers. They want to see if she has the right mechanics between her legs. She refuses. Another girlfriend is in the house. They tell the girl to show their other friend, so the go in the bathroom. Still she refuses. Eventually, after a long amount of coercion, she reveals to the girlfriend what is going on. The girlfriend walks out pale-faced. "Guys... she's a he."

The story ends in the violent death of the character, due to the hate from the guys for being different. It was as if they themselves were gay, even though they thought the character was a girl. Only one of the three guys felt sorry, and he didn't play a part in the death.

Tragic isn't it? So... were the guys gay? They were undeniably attracted to the character, who was male. This blur in our perceptions makes us all seem bisexual or merely 'sexual' - not having a true innate preference, but an externally influenced one.

[Andy]

The reality is that upbringing doesn't make you gay. It may contribute and it may help, but you're gay because you're gay, not because you agreed with your Dad (which is an absurd assumption altogether; read some psychoanalysis). This is the logic that feeds all that anti-gay movements: you can't let them adopt cause they'll raise little homos. I was raised by a gay parent. I'm not gay. I'm gay friendly, and that is a result of my upbringing, but I'm not gay. I'm hetero because that's what I was born as.
The reality is that children adopt a lot of the things they see their parents doing. The reality is that if a child is never told that heterosexual couples exist, and never sees two people of opposite sexes married, then that child is not going to know such relationships can exist unless they think of it themselves.

This is the logic that feeds all that anti-gay movements: you can't let them adopt cause they'll raise little homos. I was raised by a gay parent. I'm not gay. I'm gay friendly, and that is a result of my upbringing, but I'm not gay. I'm hetero because that's what I was born as.
Are you suggesting that because it's possible for a non-gay child to be raised by a gay parent, then the parents' influence could not possibly affect the child's sexual orientation? Logical fallacy.

If the parents were the only people the child ever interacted with, then you might have a point. But the fact that this isn't the case discredits it, because parents are not the only influence on a child's lifestyle.

In all the regions of the world, you've got different cultures and traditions. Predictably, children in these cultures adopts the things the people around them do, including holidays, religions, history, etc. This also includes sexual tastes. To take a different example, polygamy. Where polygamy exists, not surprisingly it's where some sort of religious or cultural norm causes it to exist. Polygamy isn't genetic. It's caused by parental, religious, and/or societal influences.

Homo- and heterosexuality are not some sort of magic untouchable qualities that are completely unaffected by one's upbringing.

[Ninjatrone]

So if it is impossible to stop gay chilldren from being born, what are all the angry evangelists proposing we do?
If I had worded that better, I would have said "If it is impossible to stop all children from becoming gay, because they are born that way..."

[listophergreene]

So if it is impossible to stop gay chilldren from being born, what are all the angry evangelists proposing we do?
If I had worded that better, I would have said "If it is impossible to stop all children from becoming gay, because they are born that way..."

Well... we haven't determined that gay children are born gay. Actually, children aren't sexual and therefore cannot be 'gay'. As Shaun said, sexuality is like puberty. Whether or not we are born with a sexuality, we definitely form/discover one during our greater developmental years.

And as far as evangelists go, their job is not to tell people "God hates fags!" but:
John 3: 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

As we can see, until you believe it doesn't matter if you're practically perfect or a serial killer, you can't reach God without Christ, because you are imperfect. So... these evangelists have their priorities wrong. It's "God loves you" then "God doesn't approve of what you're doing", not the other way around.

[Ninjatrone]

Well... we haven't determined that gay children are born gay. Actually, children aren't sexual and therefore cannot be 'gay'. As Shaun said, sexuality is like puberty. Whether or not we are born with a sexuality, we definitely form/discover one during our greater developmental years.

And as far as evangelists go, their job is not to tell people "God hates fags!" but:
John 3: 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

As we can see, until you believe it doesn't matter if you're practically perfect or a serial killer, you can't reach God without Christ, because you are imperfect. So... these evangelists have their priorities wrong. It's "God loves you" then "God doesn't approve of what you're doing", not the other way around.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinon. It's just suprising which ones are more widely accepted.
I once had a redneck for a best friend, his parents had taught him that Muslims worship Allah, who they insisted was the Antichrist.
It is that kind of unperishable ignorance that makes us no better than the Taliban.

[listophergreene]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinon. It's just suprising which ones are more widely accepted.
I once had a redneck for a best friend, his parents had taught him that Muslims worship Allah, who they insisted was the Antichrist.
It is that kind of unperishable ignorance that makes us no better than the Taliban.

So true, and so sad. It hurts when people teach teach their children a religion or belief that they know nothing about. Even subconsciously, children learn from their parents' perceptions of other cultures and belief systems, especially from their parents' actions. Many parents call themselves 'Christian' because Christianity is the unofficial 'in' religion right now. It's classical. But few of those parents mean what they say and their children learn that Christianity is just a title you put on yourself that you are entitled to by going to church on Easter and near Christmas.

Those evangelists that you speak of - they hurt in the same way, only the entire world can see what fools they're being and they associate that with the Christian faith.

Just for the record, the Bible says to love everyone as yourself. I have a feeling that "God hates fags!" signs don't exactly follow that law, which was deemed by Jesus the second most important law in existence.

[Andy]

Those evangelists that you speak of - they hurt in the same way, only the entire world can see what fools they're being and they associate that with the Christian faith.

Just for the record, the Bible says to love everyone as yourself. I have a feeling that "God hates fags!" signs don't exactly follow that law, which was deemed by Jesus the second most important law in existence.
So true. They give Christians everywhere a bad rep, and it sticks because that sort of craziness tends to get more media attention, too.

[Shaun]

Well... we haven't determined that gay children are born gay. Actually, children aren't sexual and therefore cannot be 'gay'. As Shaun said, sexuality is like puberty. Whether or not we are born with a sexuality, we definitely form/discover one during our greater developmental years.

The inverse is also true. We don't know if people are born hetero either. That's something that came as a shock to some of my students when we were talking about gay rights. They assumed that heterosexuality is genetic (and it probably is, which would also make homosexuality genetic as well), but no scientific research that I am aware of has made such a determination. A lot of assumptions based on figures (most people are hetero, and that is an incontrovertible fact), but nothing conclusive; just because most people are a certain way doesn't mean it is genetic (most of us are not scumbag rapists, but that doesn't mean that the impulse to not rape is genetic).

As for all the evangelists. 99% of them are hypocrites and almost all of them have never actually read the Bible (they read it, but they glossed over the parts that basically say what they are doing is wrong). The Bible also has been altered remarkably in the last 100 years (and more so in the last 50-60). For example: the word "homosexual" or "gay" was never in the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible did not have a conception of gayness, in any form. There wasn't a word for it because it was considered "normal" to have relations with men (as a man; whether lesbianism was prominent in any capacity back then is up to debate, but I suspect that even if it was, it wasn't mentioned because women had little to no rights anyway).

If you go back through the different publishings of the Bible, you can actually trace the changes in language, and certain versions of the Bible slowly become more and more anti-gay, despite the fact that the older Bibles never were. The key lines against homosexuality, for example, have been altered in such a way as to be very specifically anti-gay, despite the fact that they were never that way to begin with. This is chocked up to "better interpretation," but when interpretations follow the selective biases of the masses, it's really impossible to say that we just spontaneously saw the light and changed accordingly; no, people just hated another people and changed the Bible so it would reflect that more closely.

Hell, even the parts about Sodom and Gomorrah have been changed. Look it up. Find older versions of the King James and you will see that the language then differences remarkably from the language of today. Today, we have largely adopted the "interpretation" that Sodom was destroyed because they were committing sodomy (hence where the word comes from). That is what many say is the primary reason. But if you actually look, there is little mention of sex, let alone anal sex, in the original passages. There are phrases that people claim mean "sex," but then offer no evidence for it. And the deeper you look into why Sodom was destroyed, the more you realize that the city wasn't flattened because of sodomy, but because of the ways they were acting otherwise (blasphemy, etc.).

This is why I'm anti-religious. The Bible is too easy to manipulate to allow for prejudice and hatred to continue and grow. The gay thing is just the next violent resistance by people to the Other.

[listophergreene]

As for all the evangelists. 99% of them are hypocrites and almost all of them have never actually read the Bible (they read it, but they glossed over the parts that basically say what they are doing is wrong). The Bible also has been altered remarkably in the last 100 years (and more so in the last 50-60). For example: the word "homosexual" or "gay" was never in the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible did not have a conception of gayness, in any form. There wasn't a word for it because it was considered "normal" to have relations with men (as a man; whether lesbianism was prominent in any capacity back then is up to debate, but I suspect that even if it was, it wasn't mentioned because women had little to no rights anyway).

If you go back through the different publishings of the Bible, you can actually trace the changes in language, and certain versions of the Bible slowly become more and more anti-gay, despite the fact that the older Bibles never were. The key lines against homosexuality, for example, have been altered in such a way as to be very specifically anti-gay, despite the fact that they were never that way to begin with. This is chocked up to "better interpretation," but when interpretations follow the selective biases of the masses, it's really impossible to say that we just spontaneously saw the light and changed accordingly; no, people just hated another people and changed the Bible so it would reflect that more closely.


That's interesting. I had assumed that most changes were made as 'liberal interpretations' that either made everything sound politically correct or eliminated concepts like homosexuality so as not to offend anyone.

I do know that Paul mentions homosexuality a time or two in his letters to the churches, and since he was a Roman citizen who had been through areas such as Greece, where homosexuality was more prominent, he definitely knew what he was talking about.

[Andy]

As for all the evangelists. 99% of them are hypocrites and almost all of them have never actually read the Bible (they read it, but they glossed over the parts that basically say what they are doing is wrong).
True to an extent. It is taken out of context far too much.

For example: the word "homosexual" or "gay" was never in the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible did not have a conception of gayness, in any form. There wasn't a word for it because it was considered "normal" to have relations with men
More likely, there is no word for it because the idea didn't occur to anyone or it was unheard of, so they just called it "relations with another man."

To illustrate my point, we don't have a word for "sex with mice." According to you, that must mean it's "because it is considered "normal" to have relations with mice." Stupid example, but it's unheard of, and it illustrates my point.

If you go back through the different publishings of the Bible, you can actually trace the changes in language, and certain versions of the Bible slowly become more and more anti-gay, despite the fact that the older Bibles never were. The key lines against homosexuality, for example, have been altered in such a way as to be very specifically anti-gay, despite the fact that they were never that way to begin with.
Such as what? Bring up one example and demonstrate how it's been altered, with an "older version" to use for comparison. And please don't use some modern-day translation that nobody's ever heard of.

Hell, even the parts about Sodom and Gomorrah have been changed. Look it up. Find older versions of the King James and you will see that the language then differences remarkably from the language of today. Today, we have largely adopted the "interpretation" that Sodom was destroyed because they were committing sodomy (hence where the word comes from). That is what many say is the primary reason. But if you actually look, there is little mention of sex, let alone anal sex, in the original passages. There are phrases that people claim mean "sex," but then offer no evidence for it. And the deeper you look into why Sodom was destroyed, the more you realize that the city wasn't flattened because of sodomy, but because of the ways they were acting otherwise (blasphemy, etc.).What else do you think "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them" (Gen. 19:8–9) could possibly be referring to? Both Jewish and Christian scholars tend to agree that sodomy was the city's primary wrongdoing.

Also, don't use the King James version(s). Compared to other translations and the original Greek, it slips up on a lot of words and sends the wrong message. In one passage it translates "acts of destruction" as "acts of evil" - which are not the same thing. Use the N.A.S.B. if you want a decent translation that's not tailored to any group's specific beliefs.

Seriously, though. Translations may screw up. But unless the translations changed Sodom's name, why else do you think it would have that name?
And the deeper you look into why Sodom was destroyed, the more you realize that the city wasn't flattened because of sodomy, but because of the ways they were acting otherwise (blasphemy, etc.).Evidence?

This is why I'm anti-religious. The Bible is too easy to manipulate to allow for prejudice and hatred to continue and grow. The gay thing is just the next violent resistance by people to the Other.So the fact that the Bible on its own is a problematic source of instruction discredits religion in general? :confused:

[Shaun]

That's interesting. I had assumed that most changes were made as 'liberal interpretations' that either made everything sound politically correct or eliminated concepts like homosexuality so as not to offend anyone.

I do know that Paul mentions homosexuality a time or two in his letters to the churches, and since he was a Roman citizen who had been through areas such as Greece, where homosexuality was more prominent, he definitely knew what he was talking about.

Well, the sad thing about the Bible is that originally it was often vary vague about many of these sorts of things. Only recently have changes started to make passages that originally had little importance seem far more important than they ever were. If you want to get right down to it, the meat and potatoes of the Bible are the preachings of Jesus, the The Commandments, and a handful of other things. The rest pales in comparison to that stuff for good reason. If God thought Homosexuality was such a great sin, he would have included it in the Ten. Clearly he had other priorities; people, of course, have their own agendas.

[Shaun]

True to an extent. It is taken out of context far too much.

Honestly, I have never understood why there is a need to preach any form of hate or discrimination by manipulating or just plain using the Bible. Jesus, as far as I recall, was a nice guy, and did a lot of unfavorable things at the time to great effect, for the good of people. I figured that was what the Christian message was supposed to be, but clearly the fundies disagree...

More likely, there is no word for it because the idea didn't occur to anyone or it was unheard of, so they just called it "relations with another man."

To illustrate my point, we don't have a word for "sex with mice." According to you, that must mean it's "because it is considered "normal" to have relations with mice." Stupid example, but it's unheard of, and it illustrates my point.

It's called bestiality. It's a lump term for sex with animals, but it applies to mice just as well as it applies to horses. Of course, I doubt any of us know the history of bestiality well enough to understand why sex with animals is considered wrong, and I'll be honest in saying I have no intention in finding out. Society has deemed it wrong on grounds that have little to do with the Bible, which I have no problem with. There are plenty of things we've made illegal without using the Bible as a basis. But, getting back to the point, your argument is fallible because it's wrong. We have a word for it.

What else do you think "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them" (Gen. 19:8–9) could possibly be referring to? Both Jewish and Christian scholars tend to agree that sodomy was the city's primary wrongdoing.

That's ONE version of it. In other versions it says "so that we may know them." In still other versions, and more recent ones, it says "so that we may have sex with them." When you go from "so that we may know them" to "so that we may screw them in the butts," you're not making a logical interpretation, but injecting clear bias into the retelling. Jewish and Christian scholars have made a mountain out of an anthill with this, based on vague phrases like that. There's nothing in the line "so that we may know them" that clearly indicates that sodomy was even being committed, not to mention that if you read the passages it says very clearly why the city was destroyed: "Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekial 16: 49-50). That seems clear to me, and if there are reasons given elsewhere, then the Bible contradicts itself, in which case I am less inclined to give it any credence than before. Sometimes the simpler answer is better: Sodom was destroyed because the people there were jackasses with poor manners and clear disdain for what were believed to be the "laws of God" at the time. Even the passages that do refer to sex in other parts of the Bible are not clear as to what they mean, particularly the one that refers to "strange flesh," which could mean anything from bestiality to necrophilia to sex with someone other than your wife (or a stranger, for that matter). Interpretations of that are largely based on personal bias rather than any condition of reality.

The sad thing is that by the time someone notices that the change has been made, it's too late to point it out to the believers, because they either never saw the original version, or can't find it. My grandfather has about 20 different versions of the Bible, from different years. If I had them with me in Florida I could trace everything for you right here, and you could see how slowly and deliberately "translators" have been in changing the Bible. In fact, I recommend anyone who is a religious person actually go back through the various editions of the Bible to see the changes. It's scary as hell.

Also, don't use the King James version(s). Compared to other translations and the original Greek, it slips up on a lot of words and sends the wrong message. In one passage it translates "acts of destruction" as "acts of evil" - which are not the same thing. Use the N.A.S.B. if you want a decent translation that's not tailored to any group's specific beliefs.

Any Bible whose writers claim to have only altered it by making it read in plain English does not get a vote of non-bias from me. Sorry.

Seriously, though. Translations may screw up. But unless the translations changed Sodom's name, why else do you think it would have that name?
Evidence?

Well, gee, if the Bible weren't fallible, how else would we have been able to use it to justify slavery, massacring the Native Americans, apartheid, segregation, etc. It becomes remarkably easy to use religious authority to manipulate people into believing a certain thing is true, otherwise people might have been smart enough to look at their priests and pastors and say "really, you want us to enslave those people because they have black skin...because you say the Bible says the white race is superior? Yeah, I don't think so."

Sodomy is little more than a very clever play of cultural colonization. You tell people who trust you that one thing is true, after a while they start to believe it. Just look at the Iraq War, or the whole "we did not torture" thing, or the "I'm not a crook" or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or *insert any instance of an authority figure saying one thing, when the opposite is true, or at least where what is being said is not necessarily correct or accurate* This is the power of language and the power that human beings can have over other human beings.

So the fact that the Bible on its own is a problematic source of instruction discredits religion in general? :confused:

It does for me. It doesn't discredit any notion of faith in something else, but it discredits any religion that bases its beliefs solely on a book that is fallible, contradictory, too easily manipulated, etc.

[listophergreene]

That's ONE version of it. In other versions it says "so that we may know them." In still other versions, and more recent ones, it says "so that we may have sex with them." When you go from "so that we may know them" to "so that we may screw them in the butts," you're not making a logical interpretation, but injecting clear bias into the retelling. Jewish and Christian scholars have made a mountain out of an anthill with this, based on vague phrases like that. There's nothing in the line "so that we may know them" that clearly indicates that sodomy was even being committed, not to mention that if you read the passages it says very clearly why the city was destroyed: "Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekial 16: 49-50). That seems clear to me, and if there are reasons given elsewhere, then the Bible contradicts itself, in which case I am less inclined to give it any credence than before. Sometimes the simpler answer is better: Sodom was destroyed because the people there were jackasses with poor manners and clear disdain for what were believed to be the "laws of God" at the time. Even the passages that do refer to sex in other parts of the Bible are not clear as to what they mean, particularly the one that refers to "strange flesh," which could mean anything from bestiality to necrophilia to sex with someone other than your wife (or a stranger, for that matter). Interpretations of that are largely based on personal bias rather than any condition of reality.ot have sexual relations with that woman" or *insert any instance of an authority figure saying one thing, when the opposite is true, or at least where what is being said is not necessarily correct or accurate* This is the power of language and the power that human beings can have over other human beings.

"...So that we may know them..." I understand that this doesn't directly refer to sex, but when Lot later offers his virgin daughters as a substitute, the implications of 'knowing' someone become undeniably sexual in nature. Then we get to the whole 'Was Lot really a Godly man' thing, but that's outside of this debate. Sodom and Gomorrah were full of men who insisted on 'knowing' Lot's visitors in a sexual way. Because the angels had been perceived as men, Sodom was a host of homosexuality.

[Shaun]

"...So that we may know them..." I understand that this doesn't directly refer to sex, but when Lot later offers his virgin daughters as a substitute, the implications of 'knowing' someone become undeniably sexual in nature. Then we get to the whole 'Was Lot really a Godly man' thing, but that's outside of this debate. Sodom and Gomorrah were full of men who insisted on 'knowing' Lot's visitors in a sexual way. Because the angels had been perceived as men, Sodom was a host of homosexuality.

You just proved my point. The Bible contradicts itself. Repeatedly. It can't even make up its mind what it means by the phrase "to know them." Sometimes it means sex, sometimes it doesn't. And it says one thing one place, and another in another place.

And you wonder why I don't put much stock in it...

[listophergreene]

You just proved my point. The Bible contradicts itself. Repeatedly. It can't even make up its mind what it means by the phrase "to know them." Sometimes it means sex, sometimes it doesn't. And it says one thing one place, and another in another place.

And you wonder why I don't put much stock in it...

"To know them" is a translation done by men with limited understanding, something we must all admit to. If either of us was a Hebrew scholar we would know what that phrase meant in its original language, but since we aren't, we - like the others here - have to study translations for our understanding. "To know them" is sexual in this context, as later translations have less discretely portrayed. Even if "to know them" was all that we had to go by, the context would prove it to mean that Sodom was a host of homosexuality. Figurative or discrete language does not contradict regular usage of the same phrases.

"To know them" probably doesn't come from the same Hebrew phrasing as mere familiarity, but if it did, then it is merely being discrete in this passage. Lot's offer to the men shows us that "to know them" wasn't referring to just making friends.

[Shaun]

The sad thing here, Listopher, is that you fail to see how easily it is to manipulate the meaning to be something that it may not have been. The context is made by the phrase "to know them." If you change how that phrase is read, then it changes the context. There is no indication in the passage that it is inherently sexual. It may hint at it elsewhere, but it also says that Sodom's primary sin was not homosexuality at all, but something else.

We're in dangerous territory when people are so willing to manipulate the Bible to their own ends, and when their followers take it without question. That's how you end up with things like Nazi Germany, Stalin's Purges, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. The Bible is fallible. Admitting that is moving in the right direction.

[listophergreene]

The sad thing here, Listopher, is that you fail to see how easily it is to manipulate the meaning to be something that it may not have been. The context is made by the phrase "to know them." If you change how that phrase is read, then it changes the context. There is no indication in the passage that it is inherently sexual. It may hint at it elsewhere, but it also says that Sodom's primary sin was not homosexuality at all, but something else.

We're in dangerous territory when people are so willing to manipulate the Bible to their own ends, and when their followers take it without question. That's how you end up with things like Nazi Germany, Stalin's Purges, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. The Bible is fallible. Admitting that is moving in the right direction.

If I simply listen to what someone else tells me, I'm a victim of dogma. I would prefer to 'test the spirits', so to speak, and find for myself what makes sense and what doesn't.

I don't see how 'to know them' must inherently portray an asexual image, as everything must be taken in context. This is the reason for much modern misinterpretation. Context is very important, which is why Lot's offer to the men makes 'to know them' permissible as a sexual action.

Why does it matter if Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality or not? Sodom isn't the only reference (if it is one) to homosexuality in the Bible, and if it isn't one then what we have now is a mistranslation that has no effect in the long run, because elsewhere in the Bible homosexuality is ranked with adultery as a sexually immoral behavior. From Hebrew to Koine Greek, the translations yield the same meaning, and Koine Greek definitely had a word or phrase for 'homosexuality', seeing as it was the business language of the time.

Besides, unlike "things like Nazi Germany, Stalin's Purges, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc." I actually read (present tense) the Bible. Nonviolence is heavily promoted; actually, it's mandatory. Then we get to people like Richard Dawkins who has no clue what he's talking about but still goes around anti-preaching religious doctrine, trying to convince the world that God is some sort of supernatural bully. Talk about dogma.

[adaora]

The sad thing here, Listopher, is that you fail to see how easily it is to manipulate the meaning to be something that it may not have been. The context is made by the phrase "to know them." If you change how that phrase is read, then it changes the context. There is no indication in the passage that it is inherently sexual. It may hint at it elsewhere, but it also says that Sodom's primary sin was not homosexuality at all, but something else.

We're in dangerous territory when people are so willing to manipulate the Bible to their own ends, and when their followers take it without question. That's how you end up with things like Nazi Germany, Stalin's Purges, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. The Bible is fallible. Admitting that is moving in the right direction. well shaun those bible translations were transcribes exactly as they were spoken in their language or transcribed directly from the original manuscripts into English and if i know how languages are translating them directly from their spoken form could be very vague or over exaggerating only some words come out and convey the exact meanings as they are in English and that's why there are other versions that simplify those words and prevent ambiguity.but know this Sodom was not just punished for homosexuality alone but in the law books of the bible homosexuality is a serious sin and should not be practiced by a professing christian. as for changeability it is changeable it begins with the change of mindset and a new sexual orientation. there is no biological explanation for this and science should never fall on the hormones for theories or try to manipulate the hormonal differences in man and woman and try to link them up to justify homosexuality.

[Shaun]

well shaun those bible translations were transcribes exactly as they were spoken in their language or transcribed directly from the original manuscripts into English and if i know how languages are translating them directly from their spoken form could be very vague or over exaggerating only some words come out and convey the exact meanings as they are in English and that's why there are other versions that simplify those words and prevent ambiguity.but know this Sodom was not just punished for homosexuality alone but in the law books of the bible homosexuality is a serious sin and should not be practiced by a professing christian. as for changeability it is changeable it begins with the change of mindset and a new sexual orientation. there is no biological explanation for this and science should never fall on the hormones for theories or try to manipulate the hormonal differences in man and woman and try to link them up to justify homosexuality.

I would respond to what you're actually saying here if you could actually string a coherent sentence together. As it is, this is like reading one long, run-on sentence. No capitalization, no commas, hardly any other punctuation, etc. Come back when you can provide something intelligent to this conversation. Listopher is doing just fine arguing on his own. This isn't helping him at all.

[Shaun]

I don't see how 'to know them' must inherently portray an asexual image, as everything must be taken in context. This is the reason for much modern misinterpretation. Context is very important, which is why Lot's offer to the men makes 'to know them' permissible as a sexual action.

But in other places there is no reference to Sodom and homosexuality, so the context in the section dealing with Sodom's destruction is made by a particular interpretation of "to know them." The context, then, is created by the phrase. If homosexuality was so clearly an issue with Sodom, it would have stated it in other passages where the destruction is mentioned. Since it is not universally agreed upon as a problem of homosexual tendencies, then you can't assume that Sodom was destroyed for homosexual acts. That particular passage I cited already refutes any assumption that Sodom was destroyed for the reasons we're talking about here. Even if you take Lot's statements to be the actual reason, then you run into problems where the Bible contradicts itself or can't seem to make up its mind. Why would we preference Lot over Ezekiel?

Why does it matter if Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality or not? Sodom isn't the only reference (if it is one) to homosexuality in the Bible, and if it isn't one then what we have now is a mistranslation that has no effect in the long run, because elsewhere in the Bible homosexuality is ranked with adultery as a sexually immoral behavior. From Hebrew to Koine Greek, the translations yield the same meaning, and Koine Greek definitely had a word or phrase for 'homosexuality', seeing as it was the business language of the time.

In Greek, perhaps, but in the original Hebrew there was not a word for homosexuality. Most passages referring to homosexuality in the Bible have either been re-translated to place more emphasis on what is perceived to be reference to homosexuality, or vague. The Bible, sadly, is one of the most frequently edited books still in existence. People edit in their own biases all the time, and the people who follow the doctrine never notice. So long as men have their grubby little hands on this book, it will have no credibility in reasonable conversation. You can't take something that is supposed to be infallible, and then change it so that its meaning is different from what it was before. Not to mention, you can play this "it's mentioned in the Bible as a sin" game all you want, but there are plenty of things in the Bible labeled as sin that we don't follow anymore (unless you're a crazy Puritan). Dozens and dozens and dozens of rules, laws, passages, etc. exist that are given no credence whatsoever. It should be, then, just as easy to shed any perceived bias against homosexuality.

Besides, unlike "things like Nazi Germany, Stalin's Purges, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc." I actually read (present tense) the Bible. Nonviolence is heavily promoted; actually, it's mandatory. Then we get to people like Richard Dawkins who has no clue what he's talking about but still goes around anti-preaching religious doctrine, trying to convince the world that God is some sort of supernatural bully. Talk about dogma.

The sad truth is that Dawkins only points out facts. God destroys numerous cities, peoples, etc. in the Bible. Many times. He floods the Earth and wipes out almost all of mankind, and there is the promise of the Rapture, and hell, and all these other violent things where people who may or may not be good will be cast into hell to be tortured for all eternity, yadda yadda. There are parts in the Bible that preach non-violence (mostly those dealing with Jesus), but there are plenty of other parts that do show God to be a supernatural bully. Dawkins is heavy-handed in his approach, but he makes a lot of valid points. Religious people don't like it because it challenges their preconceived notions or paints a bad picture of them. The fact is that religion is not this magic happy thing full of puppies and flowers. It has a dark present and a pitch black past. Religion is not innocent.

[listophergreene]

Religion is not innocent.

Religion in general is portrayed quite accurately and vividly by such a statement. Christianity as a 'religion', which would include the regular dogma, et cetera, is just as much a part of that category as any other blind faith.

This is why many of us think of Christianity as a lifestyle. A lifestyle that holds God above everything and others above ourselves. A lifestyle of sacrifice. A lifestyle that is a sacrifice. And if homosexuality is one of those things that falls outside the dotted line... we shall have to cut it out of our lives as well.

So as a religion Christianity, and its Holy Book, are just like any other religion. Great for politics, war, and selfish ambitions. Worthy of distortion for personal gain. It becomes the exact lifestyle that Jesus condemned most harshly - hypocrisy. There I must agree with you.

And while I'm almost on the topic, I want to think about something else. One of the reasons that many Christians so adamantly oppose the idea that homosexuals could have been born with an inherent sexuality is this: A loving God would never create us in a form that encouraged sin, especially if he judges such sin so harshly as to condemn individuals to eternal damnation.

If we're going to think about it that way, then let's think about everything else that has gone bad in the world. We were created with free will so that our worship and seeking God would matter, but in the process we were given the ability to sin, and we used it.

We abused it. He created us with powerful sex drives so that we would be fruitful and multiply over the earth as he wanted, but our sex drives cause us so much trouble sometimes it's hard to see them as benevolent. If sex weren't so pleasurable, we could look at it just as evolutionists look at it: beneficial only to the specie, not the individual.

And so we have to realize that however our internal programming has the possibility to be wired, God can use it for the best possible outcome. I don't remember the verses that state this, but it wouldn't matter anyway, because from the outside looking in the Bible is just another dogmatic textbook on life to quote endlessly for the benefit of the quoter.

So then... I seem to have landed on a question: if homosexuality is a 'romantic' attraction to the same sex, then does it inevitably include a definite sexual attraction? Because without a specific same-sex drive, this 'homosexuality' that we speak of is no detriment to anyone's beliefs in any form. As we know from experience, though our innermost being heavily influences our actions, we can still override that influence if we wish to. In this way, whether or not 'homosexuality' is biological, it is an influence, and not necessarily a lifestyle that cannot be avoided.

So in essence, it doesn't matter if we're 'born gay' or not ^_^ Who we are is who we want to be, and we're all entitled to be free. Sadly, many people use this as an excuse to discriminate... so shame on them!

[adaora]

I would respond to what you're actually saying here if you could actually string a coherent sentence together. As it is, this is like reading one long, run-on sentence. No capitalization, no commas, hardly any other punctuation, etc. Come back when you can provide something intelligent to this conversation. Listopher is doing just fine arguing on his own. This isn't helping him at all. well um that reply was really very encouraging maybe if it had been more polite it would have been more respected ,rather than try to bring me down. Moreover i think am doing fine for a person to whom English language is a second language to.
But in the end i still maintain my stand and i mean every sentence i wrote. lastly i think i left off punctuating JUST Specially for you. So go ahead and finish the job and make some intelligible sense out of it editor-in-chief. Or better still have more patience to read it and then u will see the sense in it(I MEAN THAT IS AFTER U MUST HAVE FILLED IN THE PUNCTUATION LACUNA). ciao.

[Shaun]

There is no sense in any written work that does not even attempt to conform to punctuation and grammar standards. We have ESL people on this site, and they make fantastic use of the things you seem to cut out, even if their prose has gaps. You don't even use "you" as a word...you substitute with "u." You're just making excuses for laziness, and if you want anyone to pay attention to your arguments, then at least try to use language appropriate to the discussion and to this site.

[adaora]

There is no sense in any written work that does not even attempt to conform to punctuation and grammar standards. We have ESL people on this site, and they make fantastic use of the things you seem to cut out, even if their prose has gaps. You don't even use "you" as a word...you substitute with "u." You're just making excuses for laziness, and if you want anyone to pay attention to your arguments, then at least try to use language appropriate to the discussion and to this site.. You surprise me.really you do.Wat do i see.is that Something about laziness?.cant remember last somebody tried to make me feel incompetent.i know my capabilities.well maybe i didnt punctuate does not mean i dont punctuate.your screen name says administrator or at least i see so. i can almost imagine what u administer,i suppose you administer some of your obnoxious nature. i like the fact that you try to make self clear on issues but do it in a more conservative way and maybe i could learn. or u could teach me yourself if you please,sir. but dont worry i will take the correction

[Shaun]

You're still doing it. It's a rule on the site. Use punctuation. It's not hard. Just because you're from a foreign country and English is not your first language is not an excuse not to attempt to use the language properly. There are people from India on this site who work their butts off to use this language.

If you want to continue in this vein, please do so, just realize that the rules are explicit about this. This is a writing site, not a text speak site.

[adaora]

You're still doing it. It's a rule on the site. Use punctuation. It's not hard. Just because you're from a foreign country and English is not your first language is not an excuse not to attempt to use the language properly. There are people from India on this site who work their butts off to use this language.

If you want to continue in this vein, please do so, just realize that the rules are explicit about this. This is a writing site, not a text speak site.
OK. fine i agree. i will take my time to write well. but my god! you don't give up. thanks for the hint anyway, i will do my best. and sorry ,this is a bit out of it though, but are commentaries allowed? am currently writing about some policies in my country. can i post it for criticisms?,because i didn't see a space to publish it.

[Shaun]

So then... I seem to have landed on a question: if homosexuality is a 'romantic' attraction to the same sex, then does it inevitably include a definite sexual attraction? Because without a specific same-sex drive, this 'homosexuality' that we speak of is no detriment to anyone's beliefs in any form. As we know from experience, though our innermost being heavily influences our actions, we can still override that influence if we wish to. In this way, whether or not 'homosexuality' is biological, it is an influence, and not necessarily a lifestyle that cannot be avoided.

So in essence, it doesn't matter if we're 'born gay' or not ^_^ Who we are is who we want to be, and we're all entitled to be free. Sadly, many people use this as an excuse to discriminate... so shame on them!

Homosexuality has a sexual attraction too. There's a clear same-sex sex drive for many (though older couples have a tendency to have less of that, but that's more to do with growing old than anything else). Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you're gay...you're gay. That's it. Learn to accept it or fight it and be in conflict with yourself. That's the way you are. Other people should accept it too.

[desperatedreamer]

It doesn't really matter whether or not homosexuality is a trait that comes from nature or nurture. What matters is tolerance.

I don't know if it could be changed, but I see no reason why it should. People should be with whoever makes them happy, regardless of the other's gender.

Personally, I fall in love with PEOPLE. I don't fall in love with whether or not they have a dick. I fall in love with someone for more than that, and I think it's wrong to judge someone for not seeing things the way you do. Just a general opinion.

[Zaphkiel]

No one is really born to be a certain sex. Sexuality mainly depends on the envirement of the person, for example, Nature vs Nuture. No one is born Homosexual, Straight, or Bi, and it's not in the genes either. It's a mix of enviremental upbringing, as well as the person's own interest.

Edit: WHoops. I didn't read some of the other posts, so I might have repeated what someone else had said.

[Shaun]

The environment argument makes no sense. It's too inconsistent. If that were true, then there would be NO homosexuals at all. For the longest time people were raised in a society where acceptable behavior was dictated by the Church or by an authority figure. Yet deviations from the norm still occurred. That implies there is more to the issue than you're giving credit for.

[Zaphkiel]

Enviremental Upbringing has a lot to do with this subject. There are many homosexual couples who raise children, and there's a good chance those children might want to take after their example. Also, some boys who are only raised by there mothers have a chance of becoming homosexual, but that just depends on the Mother's values and attitude.

To say that Homosexuality is in the genes is completely ridiculous.

[Shaun]

Zaph: Historical context says otherwise. Environment has no logical basis when you take into account the history of heterosexuality in the last 200+ years. Gay families are a fairly recent development.

[Zaphkiel]

Zaph: Historical context says otherwise. Environment has no logical basis when you take into account the history of heterosexuality in the last 200+ years. Gay families are a fairly recent development.

Okay, I agree with you somewhat. However, even if Nuturing might have only a small part, that doesn't mean homosexuality is in the genes. No one is born gay, or straight for that matter... that's impossible. So considering that genes have nothing to do with one's sexual preference, and that Nuturing and envirement only play a small role, who's to say where homosexaulity spawns from. Personally, I think opposites attract (male and female), but if you love someone of the same gender for who they are, isn't it the same as loving the opposite gender?

So I guess all I have to say is...Love has no name or preference.

[Shaun]

Okay, I agree with you somewhat. However, even if Nuturing might have only a small part, that doesn't mean homosexuality is in the genes. No one is born gay, or straight for that matter... that's impossible. So considering that genes have nothing to do with one's sexual preference, and that Nuturing and envirement only play a small role, who's to say where homosexaulity spawns from. Personally, I think opposites attract (male and female), but if you love someone of the same gender for who they are, isn't it the same as loving the opposite gender?

So I guess all I have to say is...Love has no name or preference.

How exactly is it impossible to be born gay or straight? Scientifically speaking it is entirely plausible, and probably likely, that you can be born with a certain sexual persuasion in your genes. The likely culprit for the persistence of a supposedly deviant behavior implies that there is something more to it than simply nurture, and that genetics is likely to play a part, to what extent, I don't know.

I think you make the assumption that sexuality has to do with love. Love is, scientifically speaking, a metaphysical concept. There are scientific reasons for why we feel what is perceived to be love, and none of those reasons are as glamorous as "love" would have us think.

[Zaphkiel]

What the hell? You better give me some proof if you expect me to believe that someone can be born gay. I don't find it likely at all.

[Shaun]

I just did. It's called history. Something within a person defines them as gay, and the "nurture" argument does not work on its own. Your argument has no basis in reality.

[Zaphkiel]

I don't think yours is any better than mine, Shaun. I don't really see what you're trying to say. How is someone born gay? It doesn't make any sense to me.

[Shaun]

The last 200-500 years have shown a high level of extremist anti-gay activity, to the extent that anyone presumed to be gay could be executed for it. That's a fact. So your argument that you're gay because of how you grew up makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when you take into context that gay people have been springing up in all kinds of religious, anti-gay places throughout history. If nurture had something to do with it, we'd all be straight and we'd never have this discussion in the first place. Since that is not true, then there is something else at work.

[Zaphkiel]

Okay, but just because there were anti-gay organizations, it didn't stop people of the same sex from being together and raising children, or other younger generations from being influenced by homosexual celebreties. You cant rule out the nuture aspect, at least not entirely. To say that just because there was anti-gay activity means that people are born gay is not realistic at all. Sexuality is a Preference, its not encrypted in your genes.

[Shaun]

I'm not talking about MODERN CULTURE. I'm talking about pre-modernity: the time of the inquisition, of the middle ages, of the rise and fall of the Church, etc. It's well documented how the people of that time reacted to and dealt with homosexuality: with violence of the most terrifying kind. And that lasted for hundreds of years. The adoption of gay lifestyles as more "normal" is pretty much a modern invention, with exception to culture predating ancient England. The fact that homosexuals still existed in a time when being gay, or even being accused of being gay, could get you killed in the most violent and terrifying ways tosses your argument about preference right into the garbage bin. There's nothing in reality that supports your assertion. Your assertion would only be true if the world had always been kind of like it has been in the last 30 years. But since it's not, the idea of nurture and preference being the primary determinants in homosexuality is absurd.

[Zaphkiel]

You get the big "W" (Whatever). I'm sticking with my arguement, becuase even in those times, inquisition didn't stop people from prefering the same sex. African Americans were persecuted for 400 years, but that didn't stop us from getting equal rights and freedom. I'm just using that as an example. So why would it be any different for homosexuals? Just becuase they were punished doesn't mean they just stopped liking the same sex, that is stupid. So if you're straight, and people started killing heterosexuals becuase they liked the opposite, would that stop you from liking the opposite sex? Well, in your case, it would. You're not being sensible.

[Xuxu]

I don't know If I can follow this points, I don't speak or read English very good, but I would like sayy something.

Gay people doesn't need be explain themselves... We are who we are... We (or they, who lived before us) face very hard times when they come out, by churches, politician people, and their own families... Everything, because other people does not understand homosexuality is inside us... some people feel something for people of the same sex because the nature in them is able to detect their hormones...

Homosexuality is something natural... as natural as to feel love for someone who deserves it... love doesn't have sex... Everything is love, and some gays people loves more than any other people... 'cuz they understand that it's hard to be loved...

[Shaun]

You get the big "W" (Whatever). I'm sticking with my arguement, becuase even in those times, inquisition didn't stop people from prefering the same sex. African Americans were persecuted for 400 years, but that didn't stop us from getting equal rights and freedom. I'm just using that as an example. So why would it be any different for homosexuals? Just becuase they were punished doesn't mean they just stopped liking the same sex, that is stupid. So if you're straight, and people started killing heterosexuals becuase they liked the opposite, would that stop you from liking the opposite sex? Well, in your case, it would. You're not being sensible.

This all just supports my point, because that's exactly what I was saying. You were saying that nurture has everything to do with homosexuality, but that would only be true if the environment were such, and always as such, that homosexuality was accepted, in some respects, and certain quarters were open to the prospect. And yes you just admitted what I was telling you is evidence that nurture doesn't work on its own...the fact that the inquisition didn't stop people from being gay just supports the fact that nurture was not primarily responsible. Everything you've said here supports my position.

Thank you for agreeing with me that people are born gay and that nurture is not primarily responsible.

[Zaphkiel]

This all just supports my point, because that's exactly what I was saying. You were saying that nurture has everything to do with homosexuality, but that would only be true if the environment were such, and always as such, that homosexuality was accepted, in some respects, and certain quarters were open to the prospect. And yes you just admitted what I was telling you is evidence that nurture doesn't work on its own...the fact that the inquisition didn't stop people from being gay just supports the fact that nurture was not primarily responsible. Everything you've said here supports my position.

Thank you for agreeing with me that people are born gay and that nurture is not primarily responsible.

Like I said, you get the Big "W".

[Shaun]

Which basically means I won the argument, because you can't refute anything I've said. It's a childish way to end, but I'll take the win nonetheless :P

[Zombified]

It's pretty pointless to debate these people, Shaunwise.
:P

I'm surprised people keep trying to prove their point when in the end, they only prove the opposition.

[Shaun]

Yeah, I know, but still.

[Zaphkiel]

It's pretty pointless to debate these people, Shaunwise.
:P

I'm surprised people keep trying to prove their point when in the end, they only prove the opposition.

Be quiet Zomb, don't refer to me as 'these people'. I have a name, you know, and don't make me sound like a moron.

[Shaun]

I've stolen your name, Zaph. It is now mine. Mwahahahaha! /spam

[Zaphkiel]

lol, wait...huh? lol

[Shaun]

Exactly.

[Xuxu]

Why even you are discussing? Zaph, you know It's not necessary that heterosexual people understand us and we don't need discuss with them for making us part of this world.

We are who we are, we are happy with what we have... We don't have why to explain to the world what we are and what we feel... :blush:

We are homo, gay, shities... we are what we are, and that is it :D.

[Shaun]

Exactly!

[Jack]

Does that mean this thread can be closed?

[Shaun]

Yeah, might as well. Thanks!